BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Electoral Commission

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That the address of 15 December, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Anthony Hugh Burton Hobman as Electoral Commissioner with effect from 19 January 2010 for the period ending on 31 December 2013, was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked-

Bovine Tuberculosis

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to hold discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government on policy to tackle bovine tuberculosis.

Wayne David: Both the UK and Welsh Assembly Governments take the impact of bovine tuberculosis very seriously. I am sure that the Welsh Assembly Government will consider the most effective means at their disposal, including vaccination, to eradicate bovine TB in Wales.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that the badger culling programme in Wales has been a success in eradicating bovine TB? What lessons can England learn from this? Does he agree that such a programme could be introduced in England as well?

Wayne David: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, bovine TB is one of the biggest threats to the farming industry, which is a major contributor to the Welsh economy. There are mixed opinions in both Wales and England as to effective TB control, but the Welsh Assembly Government strongly believe-correctly, in my view-in a combination of badger vaccination, targeted culling and other cattle measures. The cull has not actually begun yet in Wales, but I am sure that lessons will be learned.

Alun Michael: Will my hon. Friend note that bovine TB is a serious threat to the farming industry and whereas opinions may vary, the science is entirely against the suggestion that a cull of badgers would do anything to help farmers or the farming industry? Will he encourage his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, especially in the light of the today's report from Imperial college, to study the evidence again?

Wayne David: I am aware of the press report to which my right hon. Friend has referred but, of course, nobody is suggesting that there should be a cull, full stop. We need to use a range of measures, with that mixed approach being required in south-west Wales in particular.

Roger Williams: The Labour-led Administration in Cardiff bay have come up with a positive programme to eliminate TB in cattle in Wales, which includes better biosecurity, progress on the vaccination programme and a limited cull of infected wildlife. I am sure that the Minister will agree that devolution is not about isolation; it is about spreading best practice. Will he therefore have a word with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who seems to have lost the plot on this, and give him some good tips on how that approach could be implemented in England as well? That would provide a UK free of TB, rather than just one country free of it.

Wayne David: Devolution is, of course, about not only doing things differently, but learning from the experiences of others, and I am sure that the experiences will be shared when this cull begins. I should emphasise that this is one element of a strategy that has been devised by the Welsh Assembly Government and that is fully supported by the farmers unions in Wales; I have every confidence in it.

Chris Ruane: Some £124 of objective 1-

Several hon. Members: Question 2!

Economy

Chris Ruane: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the state of the economy in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is the most enthusiastic Member in the House.
	Last month's modest but welcome growth in gross domestic product shows that actions taken by this Government have begun to secure the economic recovery in Wales.

Chris Ruane: Up and at 'em! We have had £124 million of objective 1 funding for Denbighshire, a £30 million Welsh Assembly Government investment in seaside towns in north Wales, £5 million from the Department for Work and Pensions for initiatives in Rhyl, two new further education colleges in my constituency and an extra 6,000 jobs created in Vale of Clwyd. Will those investments be under threat if that lot over there get in?

Peter Hain: The answer is yes, and my hon. Friend's constituents understand that. They know that the Conservative plans, which were reported in  The Guardian only on Monday, for savage cuts that will go dramatically further than Labour's restrained policies will jeopardise all that investment in his constituency and all the investment that is going in, and that has gone in, to Wales in 13 years of Labour Government.

Adam Price: Why is the Treasury forcing the Welsh Assembly Government to put the £97 million that Finance Wales has loaned to small businesses on their balance sheet and thus, in effect, capping the amount that can be lent, given that the Government here have been borrowing off balance sheet for years? Is that not another classic example of one rule for Wales and another for Whitehall, with Welsh people being penalised as a result?

Peter Hain: First, I am not sure whether this is the hon. Gentleman's last or penultimate appearance at Welsh questions, but I wish him well in his studies in America. We will all miss him dearly, although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) will miss him as dearly.
	At any rate, the points made by the hon. Gentleman should be considered in the context of current discussions. I am assisting the First Minister in trying to resolve the matter, because the hon. Gentleman is right that Finance Wales has played an absolutely crucial role in helping businesses in Wales and that it ought to be able to continue that role free from any debt.

Hywel Francis: There has been a 75 per cent. decrease in long-term unemployment in my constituency since 1997. Although we warmly welcome that, we should also be looking to create new, sustainable, high-quality jobs for the future, through such initiatives as the new science and technology campus in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he supports that initiative and describe what practical help he can give to that excellent plan, because it is going to be an important development for the knowledge economy in south-west Wales?

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Swansea university innovation centre, which is in his constituency-and in our proud borough of Neath Port Talbot as well-represents a major breakthrough. That the university has been able to establish a new centre of innovation, in partnership with the business community and with the support of the Welsh Assembly Government, will help the whole area to go up an extra tier and ensure that the Swansea bay area, including Neath Port Talbot, can drive forward exactly as the Government want the economy to drive forward in relation to the digital economy, the low-carbon economy and the jobs of the future. All that would be put at risk by cuts in investment in precisely that sort of project.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Secretary of State explain why, in the deepest economic downturn since the '30s, his Labour colleagues in Cardiff, in the first half of the financial year, used less than a quarter of the business support programme money available to them for assisting our hard-pressed Welsh businesses?

Peter Hain: What is interesting about the Welsh Assembly Government is that they have driven forward a series of imaginative business support programmes in all areas, including in European funding, which has helped to- [Interruption.] I am sorry about that; it was my wife calling in the middle of questions! That has helped to ensure that the Welsh economy is now recovering from, as the hon. Lady has said, the deepest recession for a very long time-at least since the 1930s. Company liquidations are down from the numbers in the 1980s and 1990s; employment levels are much higher; and housing repossessions are much lower. All that shows that the partnership between the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government is delivering for Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I thought that that was the Secretary of State's Plaid partners pulling his strings, rather than his wife calling.
	The fact is that, under Labour, the cost of business regulation has soared, and against the rest of the UK, Welsh gross value added has fallen and the wage gap has risen. That is the appalling record that is the reality of Labour in power in Wales today. Has not this underspend-I noticed that answer came there none-come at a crucial time? It is another example of Labour's economic incompetence. The money was there. Why did Labour not spend it?

Peter Hain: Employment is still much higher than when we came to power; there are 90,000 more jobs than when the Tories were in power in Wales; housing repossessions are lower than during the financial crisis that the Tories dealt with; business bankruptcies are significantly lower; economic activity is rising; and the latest report from the purchasing managers index shows that economic activity is rising for the ninth consecutive month.
	It is very important that the hon. Lady and the House consider the following point. A Conservative Front Bencher-perhaps it was her-told  The Independent on Monday:
	"We have not had a clear message...There has been no one in charge, no one to take a decision...The last few weeks have been a mess."
	She has been describing Tory economic policy, which would be visited on Wales if she got this job.

Betty Williams: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many new jobs will be created through the areas enhancement fund, and how will that help the economy of the counties of Gwynedd and Conwy?

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend may know, almost 150 businesses will benefit from funding support of between £10,000 and £90,000 that is specifically intended to help new and existing businesses. That will especially assist disabled and disadvantaged employees. The counties of Gwynedd and Conwy will also be assisted in that way, and I look forward to her working with those responsible to take advantage of that opportunity.

Economic Activity

Robert Goodwill: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on economic activity in Wales.

Peter Hain: Economic activity in Wales has increased by 8 per cent. since this Government came to power in 1997, meaning that 105,000 more people are in work or actively seeking work.

Robert Goodwill: With a quarter of the working-age population in Wales economically inactive, Wales is faring worse than the other nations in the kingdom. Will the Secretary of State tell me how many of those currently working part time do so not through choice, but because they cannot find a full-time job?

Peter Hain: Some clearly have been working part time rather than taking a full-time job, given the economic recession, but they would be looking to move into full-time work-not all, but some. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, because he will know that the number of people on incapacity benefit tripled under the previous Conservative Government, from around 800,000 in the UK to 2.5 million. Many of those people were in Wales-former miners and others were just pushed on to incapacity benefit-whereas under Labour the figure has fallen by a fifth in the past 10 years. Some 52,000 fewer people have been on incapacity benefit in the past 10 years in Wales, specifically as a result of the jobs programmes that we have put in place to support people with a disability to get back into work. All that would be jeopardised by Conservative cuts.

Julie Morgan: When GE Healthcare in Fforest Fawr in my constituency announced major restructuring last year, there were fears for the loss of highly skilled jobs in laboratories and in medical technology. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the news that all those threatened job losses have been averted, and that in fact there has been a net increase in the number of highly skilled jobs in the Cardiff area?

Peter Hain: I certainly welcome that, and my hon. Friend's role in supporting that initiative and its successful outcome is much to be commended. That shows how a Welsh Assembly Government led by Labour in Cardiff and a UK Government led by Labour here in Westminster, working together, can save jobs. Even today, we have heard about 200 new jobs at L'Oréal at Llantrisant, with a total investment of £7 million from the Welsh Assembly Government. That is good news for local workers, and it is the result of Labour investment, which would be put at risk if the Tories got into power and started their cuts programmes.

David Jones: Given that recently published figures show that economic inactivity in Wales is worse than in any other part of the UK, that three Welsh local authority areas are among the five poorest in the country, and that Wales has the highest rate of severe child poverty of all the home nations, what did the Secretary of State have in mind when he boasted last week that
	"Wales is still a wealthy country"?
	Complacent or what?

Peter Hain: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, compared with Rwanda and most countries in the rest of the world-this is the point that I was making, if he had not chosen to take that quotation out of context- Wales is indeed still a wealthy country? Yes, we have suffered setbacks in the past few years, but we suffered terrible setbacks in the '80s and '90s. One of the reasons why we are in a strong position is that we have moved forward with investment to support businesses and the economy. That is one of the reasons why the number on incapacity benefit in Wales has come down by more than a fifth, when under the Conservatives it rose year on year.

Open Source Software

Nia Griffith: What steps he has taken to implement the Government action plan for open source software, open standards and reuse in his Department.

Wayne David: The Wales Office obtains its IT services from the Ministry of Justice, which follows the Government's action plan for open source software. The Wales Office uses open source software to maintain its website, which hon. Members can find at www.walesoffice.gov.uk.

Nia Griffith: I know that my hon. Friend agrees that we need to get the best value possible for the taxpayer while also protecting front-line services, so what further savings can he suggest in his Department, and what talks can he have with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers about further savings that they could make by implementing the Government's open source software action plan? There are sensible savings on this side, compared with chaotic cuts on the other side.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend is correct to stress the importance of open source software. It is an example of co-operative values in a modern context, and of computer programmes across the world coming together to improve access to the internet. Of course, saving money is also extremely important, and the open source approach can provide best value for money to the taxpayer in delivering public services. We are discussing this at Welsh Minister level and with Whitehall Departments, and it will be an issue that we will raise constantly with the Welsh Assembly Government.

Mark Pritchard: Going one step further, has the Minister considered the benefits of cloud computing to ensuring that value for money is delivered, and that the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of public services are also delivered?

Wayne David: Yes, and value for money is central to the Government's programme. This marks a sharp contrast to the crude cuts that are being articulated by the Conservatives. We need to ensure that we have efficiency and value for money, as well as dramatic change and modernisation. We do not want crude, harsh cuts.

Paul Flynn: The Minister is aware that in the fenland area of rural Newport local firms are being hampered by the lack of broadband. Will he increase his efforts to provide it?

Wayne David: I was in Newport on Monday, and I saw good examples of companies that are thriving, admittedly in difficult circumstances. This registers the dramatic improvement that is taking place. One company that I visited is EADS, and it is a good example of that improvement. It is also necessary to maintain investment and to think strategically about how we can modernise the economy to meet the challenges of the world. That is why the Government's programme of digitisation is so important.

Flood and Water Management Bill

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on the implications for Wales of the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Bill.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Welsh Ministers on the implications for Wales of the whole of the UK's legislative programme. This Bill is very much a cross-border Bill, and it is a good example of the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government collaborating to benefit those on both sides of the border.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply. We welcome the Flood and Water Management Bill, but we are concerned by a number of potential cross-border issues relating to how the flood risk management strategy for Wales might impact on England. What assurance can he give the House today that those issues will be dealt with timeously, transparently and sensitively?

Wayne David: I can provide the assurance that the cross-border issues will be central to the implementation of this legislation. It is clear that, right from the start of the discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government, there has been close co-operation between us, and a recognition on both sides of Offa's dyke of the need to ensure that our policies dovetail, overlap and pull in the same direction. This is a good example of the kind of partnership that devolution is all about, and it is in sharp contrast to what would happen if the Conservatives were in power.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Minister agree that not-for-profit companies such as Dwr Cymru should be allowed to invest in infrastructure as they see fit in order to improve customer service? An example is the proposal for much-needed storm drainage in Llanelli, which has been rejected by Ofwat as offering poor shareholder value.

Wayne David: Investment is always important. Dwr Cymru, despite recent difficulties, illustrates how a forward-looking company that is organised in a progressive way can make a meaningful intervention. Investment in this area is extremely important, and one of the most positive examples of recent times has been the £6.1 million of European funding for flood and coastal defences across Wales. Given the hon. Gentleman's attitude towards Europe, I suggest that funding such as that might be put at risk, were his party to get into power- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. It is unfair to the hon. Members asking questions, and to the Ministers who are answering them.

Shop Direct

Lembit �pik: What representations he has received on the effect of the proposed closure of Shop Direct in Newtown on the economy of Montgomeryshire; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales met the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the company earlier this week to discuss the serious situation. The Government will take action to provide retraining and new work opportunities.

Lembit �pik: I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for their considerable help so far in contacting the local mayor, Joy Jones, and local Councillor Richard White, who are helping me to save this site. I am now approaching other firms to offer Newtown's Shop Direct premises as a going concern. Is the Secretary of State willing to intervene directly, as it seems to me that that would increase the chances of making such a transfer in order to save 180 jobs?

Peter Hain: I will certainly do all that I can, as will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to help the hon. Gentleman, who I know has been working energetically to try to save that company and the maximum number of jobs that he can. He will be aware that the claimant count unemployment in Montgomeryshire has fallen consistently over the past four months and now stands at just 2.5 per cent. There are also some job vacancies, but the priority must be to save what we can; we will work with the hon. Gentleman as closely as we can.

Bank Loans

Bob Spink: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on steps to improve the availability of bank loans for businesses in Wales.

Peter Hain: Through the National Economic Council, I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues to try to ensure that businesses in Wales can access the funds they need.

Bob Spink: Will the Government use their considerable clout with the banks to get more liquidity into small and medium-sized enterprises? The banks are withholding overdraft facilities and funding for decent, good, sound companies and subcontractors, forcing them to the wall. The banks still do not get it.

Peter Hain: I understand the frustrations that the hon. Gentleman, who has been a tireless advocate on this issue, is expressing, but the truth is that the Bank of England says that there is now more bank lending and that we have intervened with banks such as RBS in which we have a stake to ensure that they are pressed into lending extra finance. The truth is also that the Welsh economy and the British economy as a whole have started to recover from this deep recession, because of the actions that the Government have taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports what this Government have done, as opposed to the disastrous policies that the Tories would follow if they were in power.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend will know that the construction industry in Wales has suffered during the recession and that this is partly due to the banks' restricting lending in this sector-despite there being a significant demand for housing and despite the fact that the banks have received billions in taxpayers' support. Will my right hon. Friend raise this issue at tomorrow's economic summit in Llanelli, where Welsh Assembly Members and other colleagues will be in attendance, to ensure that lending is released to the construction industry, so that we get skilled workers back in work?

Peter Hain: Yes, of course I would be happy to raise this matter, which has been a source of continuing agenda discussion at recent economic summits in Wales. We will certainly discuss the issue tomorrow in Llanelli, and I will bring my hon. Friend's arguments to bear because the construction industry is vital. The investment that we are putting in will see more and more construction jobs, all of which would be put at risk if the Tories got into power.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise. I am sure that the House wishes to hear Mr. David Davies.

Severn Bridge

David Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the operation of the Severn bridge.

Wayne David: Short and not so sweet! The effective operation of both Severn bridge crossings is a priority for all travellers using this vital route to and from Wales-something that both the Secretary of State for Transport and I fully recognise.

David Davies: Will the Minister explain why users of the Severn bridge will have to pay an increase in charges, whereas users of the Humber bridge, thanks to Government intervention, will not? Why is Wales being discriminated against? Is it because the Secretary of State for Wales would prefer to compare us to Rwanda rather than to other regions of the United Kingdom?

Wayne David: I have to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the Government spend billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on subsidising the Severn crossings. I have to say that he is a classic example of two-faced Tories -[Interruption.] Yes, they suggest savage cuts one moment, while promising to spend billions the next.

Jennifer Willott: Although this is the 21st century, it is still the case that the Severn bridge toll can only be paid in cash. Because the toll is rising so fast, it is becoming trickier and trickier to have enough change. Is it not time to alter the law, so that travellers can pay not only in pounds and euros, but by credit card?

Wayne David: That is a good point. Credit card payments are, in fact, being introduced for that reason. I pay tribute to, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) for her tireless campaigning. As a direct consequence of her intervention, work is under way to make the necessary arrangements for secondary legislation.

Dairy Produce

Michael Fabricant: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on marketing Welsh dairy produce overseas.

Wayne David: The United Kingdom and Welsh Assembly Governments continue to support Welsh farmers' promotion of their first-class produce overseas.

Michael Fabricant: Has the Minister had the near-orgasmic experience of trying Rachel's yoghurt, made in Aberystwyth, or perhaps of eating Llanboidy, Perl Wen or Llangoffan cheese from Wales? What action is he taking to ensure that those culinary delights are spread throughout Europe?

Wayne David: We are doing a tremendous amount in that regard, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Minister's answer.

Wayne David: I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, and I shall do my best to ensure that you do.
	Let me give a couple of examples of the excellent work that is being done. Welsh food and drink producers will be at the Gulfood trade exhibition in Dubai this month-and of course I must add, as Members would expect me to, that Caerphilly town and borough councils are doing their utmost to promote Caerphilly cheese. It is the best cheese in Europe, Mr. Speaker, and I should be happy to give a piece to you and to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Brian Iddon: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 February.

Gordon Brown: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private Sean McDonald and Corporal Johnathan Moore from First Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, attached to Third Battalion The Rifles, and to Warrant Officer Class 2 David Markland from 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers. These were men of great character and commitment, whose loss is already keenly felt by their colleagues. I want to pay tribute, on behalf of the whole House, to their courage and dedication. We think of their families and friends, and their sacrifice will not be forgotten.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and friends. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Brian Iddon: I am sure that the whole House is at one with the Prime Minister in sending our sincere condolences to the relatives and friends of the brave servicemen who have lost their lives in serving this country.
	I am astonished at the orchestrated campaign of opposition to our social care plans that seems to have been mounted in some newspapers this morning, supported by Tory councillors and BUPA, especially as the Conservatives did not oppose those plans when they were before the House. Will my right hon. Friend commit himself to continuing the fight to improve the lot of some of our most vulnerable citizens, the poorest pensioners in the country?

Gordon Brown: I am passionately committed, as are the Government, to finding a better way of ensuring security and dignity for the elderly generation in retirement. That means not just providing institutional care of the highest standard, but helping people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible with as good amenities as possible. I hope that there will be all-party support for the Bill that is now going through the House of Lords, and has already been through the House of Commons, because it will enable us to make urgent need payments to all people-whatever their income-who need the very highest level of care in their homes. It will take time to develop a full social care system for the future, but it is in our interest to establish a consensus in the country about how we can move forward to a better system for every elderly person.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal John Moore, Private Sean McDonald and Warrant Officer David Markland, who have been killed in Afghanistan this week? Their deaths mean that more people have now died in this conflict than were killed in the Falklands war. That is a measure of the scale of the sacrifice being made. Our armed forces need to know they have all our support in the vital work they are doing.
	May I return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)? This morning local councils controlled by all parties have said that the Prime Minister's social care plans are unclear and unfunded, that they will lead to possible cuts and rises in council tax, that they have major weaknesses, and, crucially, that they will falsely
	raise expectations among many of the most vulnerable.
	Everybody wants to do more to help with care, but why does the Prime Minister think that so many of the people responsible for delivering this policy are so completely unconvinced by what he has put forward?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman's party supported this Bill as it went through the House of Commons; I do not know whether he has done another policy U-turn over the last few hours. We have set aside £670 million in the next year; £420 million will come from the health service for providing that care for urgent needs. I know how much the right hon. Gentleman likes personalising politics, and of course I know how he hates Punch and Judy politics; I also know how much he wanted to build a consensus-such as we had, for a week, on the economy-but surely it is in the interests of this House that we are united in the way we help old people in their own homes. Surely a party that supported the policy one week should not be opposing it the next week.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister is going to have pre-prepared jokes, I think they ought to be a bit better than that one-probably not enough bananas on the menu. We have consistently raised questions about the funding of this policy, and just this morning the response to a freedom of information request from the Treasury shows that it could put £26 on the council tax. I have to say to the Prime Minister that it is not just Labour councillors who are angry about the way the policy has been put forward, but Labour peers as well. Lord Lipsey was a member of the Government's own care commission, and he says that this is
	one of the most disorderly pieces of government I have ever seen.
	Lord Warner, who was one of the Government's Health Ministers, described the policy as a cruel deception of the elderly, the vulnerable and families. So can the Prime Minister explain why Labour councillors, Labour advisers and Labour Ministers are all angry about his mishandling of this?

Gordon Brown: When the right hon. Gentleman knew what Lord Warner and others had said about it, why did his party support it in the House of Commons?  [Interruption.] He cannot one day say he supports a policy, and the next day have a completely different policy, on a very important matter.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister, but there is far too much noise in the Chamber. I want questions and answers to be brief and focused on Government policy, and I want to get down the Order Paper. Let us have a bit of order, for the Prime Minister and others.

Gordon Brown: We have had U-turns every month-every day of the month-from the Conservatives. They said it was moral cowardice not to cut and tear up our Budget for 2010, and then they changed their minds and took a different position. On this issue, are they really going to say to the elderly of this country that they voted for this measure in the House of Commons, they have urged their people in the House of Lords to vote for it as well, and now they are refusing to support what we are doing to give local authorities and the elderly an extra £670 million a year? As I understand it, the shadow Health Secretary asked for talks with the Secretary of State for Health so that there could be consensus on this issue. It was only last night that they broke the consensus. They had to take down a poster that they had at the beginning of the year because it was not authentic-and they will have to bring down their new poster, because it is simply wrong.

David Cameron: What we want to know is: where is the money coming from? People who have worked very closely with the Prime Minister are completely opposed to the way this is being done. Let us try Andrew Turnbull. He was Cabinet Secretary, and he was permanent secretary for four years.  [Interruption.] The Prime Minister waves him away, but Andrew Turnbull probably knows this Prime Minister better than anyone else, and he says this:
	It is doubly objectionable. It is objectionable in process and it is objectionable in substance.
	He also says:
	It's a classic Gordon Brown dividing line:
	politically expedient, poorly costed and badly constructed. Why does the Prime Minister think Lord Turnbull has got it wrong?

Gordon Brown: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not address the policy issue? We have provided £420 million from the NHS for social care for urgent needs. We are providing £250 million from local authorities for efficiency savings. If he agrees with the local authorities and thinks that that is impossible, why is it his policy to freeze the poll tax by demanding hundreds of millions more savings from local authorities? Nothing he says adds up; nothing is consistent. He changes his policy almost every hour.

David Cameron: The fact is that it is Labour councils that are telling the Prime Minister that his policy does not add up. It is perfectly clear what the Prime Minister is doing: he wants to tell us about the benefits of the policy before the election, and the costs of the policy after the election. This is not about the benefit of the elderly; it is about the benefit of the Labour party. He wants to concentrate on the detail, so let me ask about the details of his social care plans. Will he say whether he is ruling out all forms of a compulsory levy, means-tested or not, that elderly people would have to pay? Is he ruling that out?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should read the White Paper that we put forward, which sets out all the various options before us- [ Interruption. ] The Conservatives can make all the noise they want, and they can put up all the posters, but they have absolutely no policy to deal with the problems. They have no substance, they have no judgment-but they can hurl insults. They are not the new politics; they are the same old Tories.

David Cameron: I have the paper right here, and one of the options is a £20,000 levy on every elderly person in this country, except the very poorest. That is what it says. Let me ask the Prime Minister again: will he rule out any form of compulsory levy on the elderly? Yes or no?

Gordon Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, he will see that he has not reported it correctly. He should read the whole chapter, so that he sees what it means. Once again, what positive policy has come from the Conservative party? He has been the leader of the Conservative party for four years. He has put up lots of posters, he has lots of soundbites, but there is no policy coming from him. When we are dealing with social policy- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting, but there is too much noise. The decibel level is too high. It must go down, and it must go down now.

Gordon Brown: When we are dealing with social policy, we seek consensus in this country. Where we can find consensus, we find it. The Conservatives have deliberately broken the consensus that existed, even after they voted for the Bill in the House of Commons.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister keeps saying, Read the White Paper. Actually, it is a Green Paper, and I have it here. He wants a question about the detail. It says:
	people might need to pay around £17,000 to £20,000 to be protected under a scheme of this sort.
	Let me ask him one final time: are such levies ruled in or ruled out? He says that he wants consensus, and the fact is that there is consensus. Labour advisers, Labour Ministers and Labour councils all think that he is doing this to set up cheap dividing lines before an election. One last go: are you going to do a levy? Rule it in or rule it out.

Gordon Brown: rose-

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides are far too excited, and they must simmer down.

Gordon Brown: The wall of noise will not disguise the fact that the Conservative party has absolutely no policy on an issue that is vital to the needs of the elderly for the future. This is a big challenge that this country faces because of the demographic changes that are taking place and the needs and ambitions of old people. I have to conclude that, when it comes to dealing with big areas of policy, this is no time for a novice.

Gordon Marsden: Will the Prime Minister congratulate the organisers of Showzam, Blackpool's new festival of circus, magic and variety in our winter gardens and tower? Does not this Government's funding for Blackpool's regeneration and for our new sea front, trams and headlands, alongside the Sea Change initiative, demonstrate his support for and strength in the regeneration of all our seaside towns?

Gordon Brown: I applaud the way in which my hon. Friend has promoted the development of Blackpool and all the seaside towns. The Sea Change programme has benefited 32 seaside resorts, and there has been £38 million in extra funding-money that would not be available if there were ever a Conservative Government. Regional development agencies are helping coastal towns to fulfil their economic potential-again, RDAs that would be abolished under a Conservative Government. We will do more to help the coastal towns, and employment in those towns, but that cannot be said of the Conservative party.

Nicholas Clegg: I add my expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Warrant Officer Class 2 David Markland from 36 Engineer Regiment, and Corporal John Moore and Private Sean McDonald from the Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, all of whom tragically lost their lives serving so bravely in Afghanistan this week. Reports that wounded soldiers will receive better compensation is a glimmer of good news on the day that we hear that injured veterans are having to pay for their own treatment abroad. Let me ask the Prime Minister about another hidden scandal that faces our troops. Why are our soldiers who are serving on the front line in Afghanistan receiving thousands of pounds less in basic pay than a new recruit to the police or fire service?

Gordon Brown: First of all, I have to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the new recommendations on the compensation scheme that are being prepared by Lord Boyce-and, I believe, welcomed as a review by the Royal British Legion-will extend compensation in a number of areas where there has been controversy in the past. We want to do the best we can by soldiers who are wounded. The Secretary of State for Defence will announce, later this afternoon, how the armed forces compensation scheme will be improved and in what areas, and how it will do more, particularly for award levels below the current high of £570,000. We will also introduce a faster interim payment. As for the pay of the troops, we have been determined to raise the pay of our forces at a higher rate than that of the other public services. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that for the lowest-paid troops, there was a 9 per cent. rise a year ago. I can also tell him that there is a theatre allowance, and that there is a withdrawal of any requirement to pay council tax while they are in Afghanistan. We are doing everything we can to ensure that our troops are not only well paid, but properly equipped for the challenges ahead.

Nicholas Clegg: Thousands of servicemen and women are about to put their lives on the line in the biggest offensive yet in Afghanistan. They have been stretched to the limit by a Government who have got their priorities wrong-employing 800 people to do media and communications for the Ministry of Defence but not giving our brave young soldiers a decent living wage. Is it not time for the Government to get their priorities right? They should cut the bureaucrats and pay our soldiers what they deserve.

Gordon Brown: We have always accepted the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is set up on an independent basis to take information and evidence and then to make recommendations to the Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, when he looks into this, that we have accepted recommendations that, in the past few years, have been for higher pay rises than elsewhere. I also remind him that 70,000 civilian staff have gone from the Ministry of Defence as we have made the focus of our efforts our front-line services. There will be more civilian redundancies as we use new technology to make available the back-office services that enable the front line to have the best equipment. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the fact that £14 billion in urgent operational requirements and additional money, on top of the defence budget, has gone to our troops, particularly for Iraq and Afghanistan. It really is not fair to tell our troops that they do not have the equipment that is needed when we have done everything in our power. I asked the Chief of the Defence Staff yesterday if the proper equipment was available for any exercises that we had to undertake, and he said that he had checked with those people on the ground, and that was exactly the case.

Stephen Ladyman: Specialist nurses are going to be vital if we are to meet the Prime Minister's commitment to one-to-one care for cancer patients, as well as helping people with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease to stay in their own home. However, we know from the early 1990s that when Governments decide to squeeze NHS budgets, specialist nurses often do not get a look in. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that under his Government, specialist nursing will get the resources that it needs to deliver the standard of health care at home that we Labour Members want to see?

Gordon Brown: We are trying to transform cancer care in our country. Over the next 10 years, £15 billion is being invested in research, much of it in cancer. The cancer guarantee is that people can see a specialist within two weeks. We hope that this will happen within one week, so that people can sometimes have their diagnostic test and results on the same day. We want to introduce a service in which there is personalised care available for those suffering from cancer, so that they can also be visited at home. This is how the modern health service is going to develop-personalised services available to people and tailored to their needs. With the reforms that we have made, that is now possible. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservative party is rejecting the cancer guarantee that would allow people to see a specialist within two weeks. I believe that that challenges its very commitment to the health service.

Douglas Carswell: Britain wisely stayed out of the euro. There is now a strong possibility that Greece will default on her debts-something that is not our immediate problem. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at a time when our national debt is rising fast, there is no question of UK taxpayers' money being used to bail out Greece, in any circumstances or in any way?

Gordon Brown: Greece should stick by the commitments that it has made to the European Union and the world. As the House knows, at the G20 conference in London in April we put in place arrangements that could help countries if they were in difficulty. These arrangements are still in place and have been used by some countries. It is up to the euro area to decide what it wants to do in relation to euro area countries, but there is international support available if Greece wishes it.

Karen Buck: High-visibility police patrols are the public's No. 1 priority for reassurance and crime prevention. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that the rise of 6,500 police in London in recent years now appears to be going into reverse, with the Mayor of London's draft budgets implying a cut of 455 police officers over his term in office? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to protect, in particular, our much valued Safer Neighbourhood police teams?

Gordon Brown: Under a Labour Government there has been an increase of 6,000 police in the Metropolitan Police Service since 1997. We are also proud that there are 4,500 police community support officers available. However, I have to say that for the Conservative party to publish a document on law and order that does not mention police numbers, prison places, CCTV or DNA shows that it is the first Opposition party to run out of ideas even before facing an election.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Prime Minister regret the inability of his predecessor Mr. Blair to express to the Chilcot inquiry any sympathy or regret for the awful loss of life in Iraq?

Gordon Brown: I know that the former Prime Minister wrote to people at the time and expressed his condolences and sympathies to every family. I also know that on many occasions he has expressed his sadness at the losses that have taken place in Iraq. I say to the whole House that I think that we have been united at every point in mourning the losses of our troops, and also the loss of civilian life in Iraq.

Gordon Prentice: Has my friend visited gordonprenticemp.com today to see how the next election in my constituency is being bought by a tax exile? Does he agree that he needs me here, and that Pendle is not for sale?

Gordon Brown: The Conservative party cannot talk about new politics or transparency unless it answers the central question about the tax status of its chief fundraiser, Lord Ashcroft. The Information Commissioner has already said that the party has been evasive and obfuscatory about the Ashcroft scandal. The Opposition have questions that they have to answer.

Roger Williams: The Prime Minister and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills are right to believe that a central plank of building a sustainable and prosperous economy is investing in science and research, yet cuts in research budgets are being reported across the country. I am thinking in particular of the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences in Aberystwyth, which is facing cuts of £2.5 million and 70 job losses. If the Prime Minister has any influence with his noble Friend, will he intervene to maintain investment in science?

Gordon Brown: I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have doubled the science budget over the past few years and done more for British science than at any time since the second world war. An innovation fund has been set up to benefit scientists as they develop their innovations and put them into the marketplace. I know that Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, announced today the thousands of jobs that can be created in new scientific industries as a result of our investment, and I believe that universities and science researchers recognise that we have doubled research activity in universities over the past few years.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Prime Minister agree that the arrest of General Fonseka in Sri Lanka is yet another indication that the regime of President Rajapakse is sliding into dictatorship?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, a decision was made at the Commonwealth summit that Sri Lanka would not host the next Commonwealth summit. We are aware of the human rights issues that have arisen in Sri Lanka since the fighting that took place with the Tamils. We urge the Government to recognise the human rights of all those who are Tamil citizens in Sri Lanka, and we also urge them to move forward with the reconstruction of the country so that those who have been excluded both from power and from the chances of a livelihood can benefit now.

Phil Willis: The Prime Minister knows that every five minutes in the UK somebody has a stroke, which will have a devastating effect on those people's lives and on the lives of their families. In Harrogate the Stroke Association has set up a carers resource to support families in their own homes, yet Conservative-controlled North Yorkshire county council has slashed the £35,000 budget, preferring to spend £140,000 on self-congratulatory newsletters. What is the Prime Minister- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the question and then the answer. Finish the question, please.

Phil Willis: What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that the national stroke strategy is carried out everywhere, but particularly in North Yorkshire?

Gordon Brown: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Conservatives have nothing to congratulate themselves about. It is the Government who have published a stroke strategy. It is also the Government who want to introduce a health test so that people can get a health check-up. We believe that that would remove the possibility of hundreds of deaths as a result of strokes or heart disease, and we will introduce that during the next Parliament.  [L aughter.] The Opposition laugh every time we talk about measures that try to improve people's health in this country. If they were really interested in the health service they would support the new health service guarantees, but because they are not, they cannot bring themselves to support a guarantee that every citizen of this country could get a health check-up, whereas previously they would have had to pay.

Gwyn Prosser: The port of Dover is the busiest ferry port in the world. I have sailed out of it for 12 years and represented it for the past 13 years. What can the Prime Minister say today to dispel the fabrications and fables being spun by the carpetbagging Conservative candidate, who says that the Government are hell-bent on selling the port of Dover to the highest bidder, and that the highest bidder might be French?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I gently say-I was trying to hear, but there was a lot of noise-that as far as I am aware, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for the stance taken by Conservative candidates?

Gordon Brown: Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker. It is my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) who has been a great champion of Dover and its people, and I know that he wants the best for the people of Dover, including a flourishing port. I share that aspiration. There will be no forced privatisation under Labour-[Hon. Members: Reading!] We will look for new ways of getting new investment into the port- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the seam is exhausted.

John Redwood: Why, uniquely among the advanced economies, does the UK have an inflation rate well above target and rising very sharply, when our output is so very flat?

Gordon Brown: If we took the right hon. Gentleman's advice there would be massive cuts in public expenditure. He is the one who says that there should be even more cuts than are being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. We would lose jobs and businesses, and our economy would go deep into recession again. That is not a policy that the people of this country want. The Conservatives have dozens of policies on this, and the right hon. Gentleman's is the most extreme-but we will follow none of their advice.

Chris Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains his intention, in the event that this Government are re-elected, to restore the link between old age pensions and earnings, which was abandoned in the early 1980s?

Gordon Brown: It was part of the Turner report's recommendations to reform the pension system. That was originally accepted on an all-party basis by all parties in this House, and we will wish to go ahead with our proposals.

Andrew Robathan: As is recorded in column 292 of last Wednesday's  Hansard, the Prime Minister said that he had no knowledge of a £50,000 slush fund for his leadership campaign, and that that was why it was not registered in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. He has had a week to reflect. Has anything jogged his memory? Would he like to correct the record?

Gordon Brown: All donations to the Labour party are reported by the Labour party, not by me.

Gisela Stuart: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), and ahead of the European Council, will the Prime Minister confirm that any negotiations involving a bail-out for the Greek economy will be completely confined to eurozone countries, and have no impact on the UK?

Gordon Brown: I have already said that international support is available for countries, as set up by the G20 summit in London in April. That support can be drawn on at an international level. If the euro area wishes to move ahead with a proposal, that is for the euro area.

Annette Brooke: Recent research has shown that more than 70 per cent. of blind and partially sighted people are unable to access vital personal health information. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the Royal National Institute of Blind People, so that we can discuss provisions that could address that shameful inadequacy?

Gordon Brown: GPs are already required, under relevant legislation, to make reasonable adjustments to their written information for patients with a visual impairment. The Equality Bill also contains legislation that will avoid discrimination against people with lesser sight, and anybody with a visual impairment should also be aware that the General Medical Council has issued guidance that doctors must ensure that arrangements are made to meet patients' language and communication needs. We will do everything in our power to improve the services to those with visual impairments, and I would be very happy to meet any delegation that the hon. Lady brings to me.

Alan Simpson: Does the Prime Minister accept that the welcome international support for eurozone countries facing economic difficulties is undermined by the $8 billion-worth of speculative transactions that are currently taking place against the value of the euro? Does that not reinforce his case for the urgent introduction of a Tobin tax, which could bring to the international table £400 billion per year? That would be as relevant to the developing needs of the poor countries in the south as it would be to avoiding austerity measures in the north.

Gordon Brown: What we want is international agreement to restructure our banking system in the way that is necessary. It cannot be done by one country on its own; it must be done by countries working together. We have put proposals to the G20 whereby we could co-ordinate activity in terms of capital requirements for banks, liquidity ratios and the rewards that they are prepared to pay, but it is also true that the relationship between banks and society needs to change. I have proposed, with other people, that a levy be raised from banks. There is new interest in that around the world, and I believe that over the next period we will reach agreement on a global financial levy. I am sorry that many people opposed it when it was first announced, because I believe that we will be able to go ahead with it in the not too distant future.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will now be a statement by the Foreign Secretary. I would be grateful if, as the Foreign Secretary makes his way to the Dispatch Box, Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quickly and quietly.

Binyam Mohamed

David Miliband: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House on the case of Mr. Binyam Mohamed following the judgment handed down this morning in the Court of Appeal.
	The Court of Appeal has ruled that, in the light of disclosures by a United States court in December 2009, which I shall describe below, the seven paragraphs that have been redacted from the original judgment of the divisional court in this country of 21 August 2008 should be published. The seven paragraphs contain summaries of American intelligence relating to Mr. Mohamed's case held in UK files. I accept the Court's ruling, which concludes a very complex, and in various ways apparently unique, case, and I have made the relevant paragraphs available this morning on the Foreign Office website. The judgment is significant not just in respect of the seven paragraphs but for important principles that are at the very heart of both our national security and our democracy.
	The facts are as follows. Mr. Mohamed, an Ethiopian national formerly resident in the UK, was detained in Pakistan in 2002. In 2004, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. In August 2007, the then Home Secretary and I wrote to the US Secretary of State to seek Mr. Mohamed's release from Guantanamo Bay and his return to the United Kingdom, along with four other UK residents. Mr. Mohamed was released from Guantanamo a year and a half later, in February last year.
	In May 2008, Mr. Mohamed brought proceedings against the British Government in an effort to secure disclosure to his legal counsel of any material held by the British Government that might assist in the defence of his case before a US military commission. The question at issue in our appeal against the judgment of the divisional court was not this disclosure, which we supported and secured. It was instead whether intelligence provided, on a confidential basis, by one state to another, in absolute trust that it would be kept secure, should be disclosed into the public domain in the interests of open justice; or whether the breach of trust would be so grave as to endanger intelligence-sharing relationships and therefore affect national security. As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, in this case it was US intelligence and an English court, but it could just as easily be British intelligence in a foreign court. As I have also said to the House, often, at issue in this case was not the content of the seven paragraphs, but the principle of their disclosure by an English court against US wishes.
	I am grateful for the consideration that the Court of Appeal gave to the control principle. This principle, which states that intelligence belonging to another country should not be released without its agreement, underpins the flow of intelligence between the US and UK. This unique intelligence-sharing relationship is vital to national security in both our countries. Crucially, the Court has today upheld the control principle. The judgment describes that principle as integral to intelligence sharing. It specifically vindicates the careful assessment that releasing the seven paragraphs without the consent of the United States would have damaged the public interest. It also specifically makes clear that
	this litigation has endorsed the application of public interest immunity and the maintenance of confidentiality over secret information.
	This is important for the future of intelligence-sharing with the US and others.
	However, on 17 December last year, we received notice of a US court ruling in the case of another Guantanamo detainee, Farhi Saaed Bin Mohammed, which made a finding of fact in respect of Binyam Mohamed's allegations of mistreatment. That judgment does not set out the content of the seven paragraphs per se, but it does include references to the treatment of Mr. Mohamed covered in the seven paragraphs. We brought this to the attention of the Court of Appeal and Mr Mohamed's counsel immediately. The Court of Appeal today ordered the publication of the seven paragraphs because, in its view, their contents were placed into the public domain by a United States district court. Without that disclosure, it is clear that the Court of Appeal would have upheld our appeal and overturned the fifth judgment of the divisional court. The Court of Appeal was also clear that the judiciary should overturn the view of the Executive on matters of national security only in the most exceptional circumstances. It states that
	it is integral to intelligence sharing that intelligence material provided by one country to another remains confidential to the country which provided it and that it will never be disclosed, directly or indirectly by the receiving country, without the permission of the provider of the information. This understanding is rigidly applied to the relationship between the UK and USA.
	I spoke last night to Secretary Clinton about this case, which has been followed carefully at the highest levels in the US system with a great deal of concern. Recent events have shown the importance of the US-UK intelligence relationship in the fight against terrorism; equally, the determination of the US authorities to protect the confidentiality of their intelligence has been absolute throughout this case. We will work carefully with the US in the weeks ahead to discuss the judgment and its implications in the light of our shared goals and commitments.
	Mistreatment of prisoners, not to say torture, violates the most basic principles of this country, never mind our national and international legal obligations. There is a fundamental commitment on the part of myself, responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, responsible for the Security Service, and the heads and staff of those agencies, to uphold the highest standards of conduct not just for ourselves but with the countries with which we co-operate.
	A wide range of allegations have been made during the course of this case. Today some of the facts can be publicised, in some cases for the first time. First, the paragraphs released today describe information received by our intelligence agencies concerning the conditions of Mr. Mohamed's detention by the United States in Pakistan in April 2002. They note specifically that he was subject to sleep deprivation, threats and inducements, that he was held shackled, and that the treatment, were it conducted by the United Kingdom, would be contrary to undertakings first given to this House in 1972. I repeat that it was not conducted by the UK.
	Secondly, now that they are in the public domain, it will be evident that the paragraphs do not contain information on Mr. Mohamed's most serious claims of mistreatment, notably in respect of alleged genital mutilation, during his detention until his release from Guantanamo last year. We, the United Kingdom, have no information to corroborate those allegations. Those matters have quite properly been raised by Mr. Mohamed in his civil claim for damages and will be addressed there.
	Thirdly, during the course of these proceedings, allegations of possible criminal wrongdoing by a British official were made. The Home Secretary referred them to the Attorney-General for her consideration, and they are now the subject of a police investigation.
	The most basic values of this country are at issue in the debate that will follow the Court's decision today. Our position is clear: the UK firmly opposes torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. This is not just about legal obligations, it is also about our values as a nation and what we do, not just what we say. We have taken a leading role in eradicating torture internationally, both through organisations such as the United Nations and by assisting other countries. Where possible wrongdoing is found, it is fully investigated.
	I also want to place on record the fact that we are lucky to have the best intelligence agencies in the world. Their staff are second to none in their commitment and public service. They are respected across the world, and the work that they do to keep Britain safe deserves all our admiration and gratitude.
	There is a fundamental myth that needs to be addressed, which is that the security services operate without independent oversight. Ministers and agency heads have the first responsibility for the conduct of their organisations. The Intelligence and Security Committee provides parliamentary scrutiny of agency activities, and independent judicial oversight is provided by the commissioners, who by law must be given access to whatever documents and information they need. Both report annually to the Prime Minister and to Parliament. Then there are the courts, whose role is to protect the rights of individuals and provide recourse to justice when they believe they have been infringed. That they have done, and continue to do, in this case.
	Today's judgment is not evidence that the system is broken. Rather, it is evidence that the system is working and that the full force of the law is available when citizens believe that they have just cause. The six judgments in this case, plus a closed judgment, show a seriousness of purpose in our legal system that is a vital part of our system of accountability. We have fought this case and brought the appeal to defend a principle that we believe is fundamental to our national security-that intelligence shared with us will be protected by us. No one likes to lose a case, but the force of the judgment is that it firmly recognises that principle. In doing so, the Court is fulfilling its vital constitutional role, protecting this country and upholding the law.

William Hague: We on the Conservative Benches have always held that the intelligence co-operation between the United States and the United Kingdom is unique in the world and of immense value to both countries, and that its disruption would have serious consequences for our national security. I echo the Foreign Secretary's tribute to the security services.
	At the same time, we have consistently argued for full investigation of all credible allegations of UK complicity in torture, and for the Government to find a way in this particular case to balance the needs of national security with the need for justice and accountability in our democratic society. We therefore welcome today's judgment, which upholds the principle of control and the need for openness in this particular case.
	The alleged treatment of Binyam Mohamed described in the seven paragraphs now released by the Foreign Office is so utterly unacceptable, and the alleged treatment described in the US court judgment in December so dramatically unacceptable, that if true, they are not only morally wrong but will harm our efforts to combat terrorists, play into the hands of their propagandists and weaken, rather than strengthen, our national security.
	We have always believed that the principle of control could be upheld while seeking an exception in this case from the United States. The Foreign Secretary will recall that I put to him in the House a year ago this week that the Government could have positively asked the US for permission to publish these paragraphs. If they had done so, and if the US had agreed, we would have arrived at the same outcome as today's Court judgment, without a further year of legal proceedings, more quickly and smoothly, and in a way that left the Government less open to the attack that they were withholding from the public evidence of complicity in torture. Does not the fact that the relevant information has been published anyway in the US strengthen our case that that would have been the right course of action a year ago?
	In other respects, we agree with the Foreign Secretary's statement, particularly on maintaining the principle of control of intelligence, which, indeed, the Court ruling reaffirms and which we fully support. He has long argued that the intelligence-sharing relationship would be damaged by the release of these paragraphs. Is it still his view that that relationship will be damaged now that the information has been published? Can he say whether there are any other cases pending involving allegations of torture, in which he expects the principle to be challenged? In the light of the failed Detroit bomb attack and the serious threat at the moment to both the UK and the US from terrorism, can he assure the House that the sharing of information at this critical time has not been affected in any way? Have any other countries with which we share intelligence warned that they will reconsider the basis on which they share information in the light of today's developments?
	My final set of questions concerns the overriding need to draw a line under this episode and restore the UK's moral authority in the matter of allegations of complicity in torture. As the Court ruling states,
	the rejection of torture...has a constitutional resonance for the
	British
	people which cannot be overestimated.
	Many of us have criticised the use of extraordinary rendition and the possibility that it can sometimes lead to torture in a third country. The US court ruling, which was decisive in making the Court of Appeal here change its view on publication, states unequivocally that, as a matter of fact, Binyam Mohamed was tortured over a period of two years. Do the Government now accept that statement? The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the police are currently investigating possible criminal misconduct in the case of Binyam Mohamed. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether there are additional investigations into other, parallel cases, and how many cases the Attorney-General is reviewing?
	This case has come to epitomise the challenge of international terrorism and how we deal with it. However difficult that challenge is, we must be clear that winning the battle against the perpetrators of terrorism and their ideas requires moral as well as military strength. The Government must be able to assure the country and the world that a line has been drawn, that we are far more confident that allegations of complicity in torture cannot be made against the UK in future, and that all the necessary lessons of this episode have now been learnt.

David Miliband: I concur with the right hon. Gentleman that this case has come to symbolise or epitomise some of the most difficult issues raised by the terrorist campaign in the nine years since 11 September 2001. It has also come to symbolise some of the key judgments that need to be made on how to ensure that our values and security are brought together. It is absolutely the case that the shared commitment across the House against torture and in favour of meeting all of our commitments in respect of cruel or inhuman treatment is a vital part of making this a safe country-far from undermining that, our commitment goes to the heart of what we are seeking to defend.
	The right hon. Gentleman queried the decision not to launch a campaign, as I called it last year, for the release of the documents in the United States. He is right that we did not launch such a campaign, although we were absolutely clear that they must be released to Mr. Mohamed's defence counsel, as indeed they were.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the same outcome would have been achieved if we had launched a campaign and it had succeeded. That is not entirely the case, because obviously the commitments that the Court has made today about the control principle would not have been made in those circumstances, and those commitments and comments are valuable and important.
	I also said to the right hon. Gentleman last year, and I stick by it today, that the United States Administration under President Obama have shown clearly their commitments in respect of anything that resembles torture or inhuman treatment. They are reviewing all the cases and they have clearly decided, so far, not to release the documents. The paragraphs released today are summaries of the US intelligence that we hold, not the actual documents, so I do not think that it would have been right for us to launch such a campaign. Apart from anything else, it would have suggested a degree of uncertainty about the commitments that the US Administration made that would not be merited.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about any chilling or constraining effect that this case might be having, has had or will have on intelligence sharing. That is of grave concern to me, the Government and the whole country. I said in my statement that we would work with the US Administration, not just the State department but across all aspects of the US Government, to analyse this judgment; to understand its implications; to draw attention to the commitments that the Court makes in respect of the control principle; and also to discuss how we continue to defend that principle in the future. I am clear that it is an important job for me and for my colleagues to minimise any potential effect on the intelligence-sharing relationship, not least given the recent events that show how important it is, but it is too early to say that there will be no such effect and we need to work to ensure that that is indeed the case.
	The fact that the Court of Appeal has so clearly said that it was the disclosures in a US court that led it to make its decision today that the seven paragraphs should be published is obviously a material aspect in the discussion about whether the control principle has been breached.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the judgment of facts that the US district court made. We await the US Government's view on whether those are indeed matters of fact, as they have not yet corroborated or committed to that, but we obviously recognise that, as far as the court is concerned, they have been established as a matter of fact and it is not for us to query the judgment of the US court in that respect.
	One key aspect of any lessons drawn or consequences arising from this case concerns the following three allegations that have no truth at all. First is the allegation that there is no oversight of the security services in this country. That is wrong. The second allegation is that it is our policy, if not to torture or commit acts of inhuman treatment ourselves, then to be complicit in them. That is not true. It is also not true to allege that, if possible wrongdoing occurs, it is covered up. This case shows clearly, in the work of the Attorney-General and the courts, that this country is committed to upholding all its commitments, and it does so for very good reason.

Edward Davey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and echo his support for our excellent security services and his emphasis on the importance of our close relationship with our American allies, but given that one of the most senior judges in the land has openly criticised the Foreign Secretary and his legal representatives for accusing other judges of being irresponsible, and dismissed the Government's appeal, the Foreign Secretary should have been more contrite in his statement today.
	The Liberal Democrats also respect the control principle for the way in which foreign intelligence is handled, but unlike the right hon. Gentleman-and like the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)-we believe that the Government had a duty to ask the American authorities at the highest level whether they would release this information. Given the gravity of the accusations and the information that has now been published, one would have thought that that was exactly the right thing to do.
	I turn to the content of the seven paragraphs that the Foreign Secretary has been forced to publish today. Is it not now clear that the British authorities knew that the US was using torture techniques against Binyam Mohamed? Will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House what steps the British Government took at the time to deplore that use of torture? What steps did they take to ensure that Britain was not complicit in that torture? Will he guarantee today that at no stage in this case was Britain in breach of either our domestic or international obligations on torture?
	Anyone who has followed this case closely, including the evidence given by the Security Service officer involved to the courts, will recognise that knowledge of the American use of torture did not remain within the secret service but was almost certainly passed on to the highest levels of Government. Does the Foreign Secretary know whether Ministers were told that the US was torturing Binyam Mohamed, and when? Will he now ensure that all such evidence is given to the police in charge of investigating allegations of British complicity in torture in this case?
	I accept totally that the Foreign Secretary fought this case for honourable and just reasons, but will he now take another honourable step, given this and other allegations of British complicity in torture, and set up a wide-ranging judicial inquiry?

David Miliband: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the work that is done by the security and intelligence services and salutes that work, but he does himself no justice by asking questions that he knows I cannot answer, because of the legal circumstances, or by repeating as questions allegations to which he knows the answer. He asked about the case involving so-called witness B. He knows that I cannot talk about that case because it is currently in front of the courts. It is not right to seek answers to questions that could prejudice an ongoing police investigation.
	The hon. Gentleman also asks whether the police have been given access to all the relevant papers, and he knows very well that all the relevant papers have been handed over to the police, because that is the basis on which the Attorney-General made her decision to ask for a police investigation.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked what the effects-I think that that was the word he used- of this case would be. It depends how the debate is carried forward, but he will know from the successive reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee that significant changes have been made in the nature of the guidance that is issued to our security and intelligence service personnel and the way that policy is promulgated. As well as the generic issue, individual cases have been examined and set out by the Committee. Its recommendations have been followed and the Government have said clearly what they have done in that respect.
	One outstanding issue concerns the publication of the reformed guidance in the light of the Binyam Mohamed case. That is currently sitting with the Intelligence and Security Committee, as the Prime Minister promised the House that it would, before publication.

Diane Abbott: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people listening to this debate will be surprised to hear him describe the Court ruling as a vindication, when in fact he has been forced to reveal information that he has struggled for a long time not to reveal-even when it was legally available in the US? Is he aware that it cannot be right to describe the information released today as clearing the Government of any involvement, past or present, in extraordinary rendition-and thus complicity in torture? He must be aware that, whatever is happening now under a new US Administration, there are still questions to be answered about past British involvement in extraordinary rendition and thus in torture.

David Miliband: The vindication is of the control principle, and that was made clear by the Court. The Court also makes it clear that, in the absence of the American judgment of December 2009, it would have found in favour of the Government. That is an important point.
	In respect of extraordinary rendition, I do not recognise my hon. Friend's description of UK complicity-

Diane Abbott: There are questions to be answered.

David Miliband: Well, questions have been asked about extraordinary rendition in respect of Diego Garcia. My hon. Friend knows very well that two cases have emerged from studies of the American files. They were immediately publicised to the House in the appropriate way. There may have been subsequent questions, but there have also been answers to each and every one of those questions in respect of Diego Garcia. It is very important that we do not allow the impression to go abroad that there are outstanding issues in that respect-there are not.

David Davis: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for making this statement, because it is good that he did so? Just before he stood up earlier,  The Guardian published on its website a copy of a letter from Jonathan Sumption QC, his lawyer, raising the matter that the Government are still seeking a redaction-it would appear-from the judges' rulings. I shall read the Foreign Secretary the following short extract from that long letter:
	The Master of the Rolls's observations...are likely to receive more public attention than any other part of the judgments. They will be read as statements by the Court (i) that the Security Service does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights...(iii) that officials of the Service deliberately misled the Intelligence and Security Committee on this point (iv) that this reflects a culture of suppression in its dealings with the Committee, the Foreign Secretary and indirectly the Court, which penetrates the service to such a degree as to undermine any UK government assurances based on the Service's information and advice; and (v) that the Service has an interest in suppressing information which is shared...by the Foreign Office for which he is responsible.
	Will the Foreign Secretary comment on that?

David Miliband: I will comment on it, but it is very important that the facts are on the record, not the allegations, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to go through this. First, it is not correct to say that the Government or, more specifically, the counsel for the Government, sought redactions of the judgment. A redaction suggests that we wanted an item deleted that we accepted was true. Once our counsel had been provided with a copy of the judgment in draft, as is normal practice, he had a real concern that one paragraph set out conclusions that went beyond the evidence presented and raised prejudice in respect of the ongoing case involving witness B. He took the view that that should be brought to the attention of the judges in the case. The three judges examined that letter and decided to amend the paragraph so that it took the final form that it did; the court concluded that the concern was well founded, so it revised its paragraph in the light of it.
	It is very important that we also remember that in open court today the counsel for Mr. Mohamed apologised unreservedly for releasing this private legal document-it is a normal part of legal practice that such correspondence should take place. It is also important that no suggestion is made anywhere to impugn the integrity of the judiciary in making their own judgments. What the judiciary say in a draft judgment or in a final judgment is their business, and their independence is at the heart of their final words. The words that appear today in public are those of the justices in the case, and it is their decision to release them on that basis.

David Winnick: In no way do I question my right hon. Friend's integrity, but is he aware that for some of us the heart of this issue is simply the question of whether British security officials knew that torture was being applied against Mr. Mohamed by the United States? If no action was taken by us and no information was given to Ministers, that is a stain on the reputation of our country and it should never happen again. It is just not good enough to say that Britain is not a party to torture. If we know that torture is being carried out by our closest ally, we have a responsibility to act, and I am afraid that in the case of Mr. Mohamed we did not do so.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend rightly says that we have responsibilities not only in respect of the conduct of our own officials, but if we come to know that torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment, is being undertaken by others with whom we work. We have a responsibility to act when we have that information and we should do so. A criminal case is being studied at the moment to see whether the actions taken were in accord with the principles that he and I share, as does the whole House. That is how the system should work and that is how it is working. For all the proper talk of lessons, I should also say that significant changes have been made since 2002 in the way in which guidance is offered to all officers, in the way in which they are trained and in the way in which the system is patrolled and policed, and that is the right approach.

David Winnick: At the time?

David Miliband: In respect of what happened at the time, that information is in front of our police at the moment and if they proceed to charges, it will go in front of the courts in order to find out exactly what happened in this particular case.

Julian Lewis: According to comments made by the great theorist of counter-insurgency, Sir Robert Thompson, more than 40 years ago, not only is prisoner abuse morally wrong, but it is lethal to any counter-insurgency campaign. I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary cannot or does not wish to comment on the particular case that is before the courts, but in response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) can he address the question of what representations the Government made to our American allies more generally when it became known that waterboarding was being used?

David Miliband: I am very happy to say clearly that the Government, as has been detailed in successive Intelligence and Security Committee reports, did follow that up, and not just in terms of our own system and how practices were developed. I think I should set out what happened in a letter to the hon. Gentleman. It has also been documented what did not happen and what should have happened, not in respect of an individual case, but in respect of training and guidance for officials, for example. That means that we are in a much stronger position today than we were in 2001-02, and rightly so. We always keep things under review, and the publication of the current guidance, which is before the ISC, will be an important opportunity for not only the whole House, but for the whole country to see how that is taken forward.

Keith Vaz: May I join the Foreign Secretary and others in congratulating the security services on their professionalism? May I also take him back to the police investigation? I wrote to the Attorney-General on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs a year ago about this matter and she referred it to the police. Has this been ongoing for a whole year? If so, can we expect an update from the police as to when these investigations will conclude?

David Miliband: No-I am afraid that there is a very short answer to that. It is not for the police to provide a running commentary on their investigations; they have to continue them until they are concluded and then make a decision. I understand that when the case was before the Attorney-General, my right hon. Friend made representations for her to speed up her work. She concluded that work and it is now before the police, but I cannot give him any joy about any running commentary that the police might provide.

Douglas Hogg: The Foreign Secretary's statement makes it plain that in 2002, while in US custody, Mr. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to systematic maltreatment, probably amounting to torture. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when the Government first learned of those facts? At what level in government were those facts known? What steps were taken to make urgent representations to the United States Government that this must stop? What steps were taken to prevent extraordinary rendition from being practised, to which we were a party? Was not the concealment of this document very damaging to Mr. Mohamed's claim for civil damages?

Mr. Speaker: I recognise the rhetorical technique that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was deploying but, unless my arithmetic failed me, I counted about six questions, to which one answer will suffice.

Douglas Hogg: I apologise.

Mr. Speaker: Not at all. I call the Foreign Secretary.

David Miliband: I think that the best way I can answer the legitimate questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has posed is to detail for him what has, in fact, been reported through the ISC about what the Government knew, when they knew it and what action they took. In answer to one of his questions I wish to say that it was the actions of the Government, as recorded in the divisional court, that got the documents to Mr. Mohamed's legal counsel. That is why the constant confusion between the suppression of evidence as regards Mr. Mohamed and the publication of the evidence is so damaging. It was at the heart of the Government's case that we had a responsibility to ensure that Mr. Mohamed was able to defend himself. That is why we made representations to the US authorities, and the divisional court, in effect, congratulated the Government on achieving that. That is not the same as publishing the documents into the public domain, because one concerns justice for the individual whereas the other concerns the public interest in open debate. I shall provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a detailed explanation in respect of his other questions.

Dari Taylor: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House and for once again making it clear to everybody that torture or complicity in torture is totally unacceptable, may I add a thank you for his comments about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I serve? I believe that it scrutinises the security agencies forcefully and purposely. However, will there now be-this is crucial for us all-a watching brief on how intelligence sharing between Britain and the UK will continue? I ask that because it is important for us to acknowledge that that relationship is crucial to Great Britain's future security.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is right; there will be a taking stock, as I set out in my statement, and we will seek to ensure that the full intelligence sharing that is so vital to both our countries continues unabated. However, there is no point in denying that there will be a taking stock as a result of this judgment.

Andrew Tyrie: The Foreign Secretary said that our most basic values as a nation are at stake here. I agree. It is only by getting to the truth about all this that we can bring closure to the whole sorry episode that is now called extraordinary rendition and in which the UK appears to have allowed itself to become complicit in kidnapping and torture. Indeed, a judge in another case said that we had facilitated a rendition, so the issue of facilitation, in principle, is no longer in doubt. Given all that, will the Foreign Secretary now finally discuss with the Prime Minister the need for a judge-led inquiry, which is supported by Lord Carlile, who is the Government's own anti-terrorism watchdog, the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, as well as many others?

David Miliband: I am interested to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is re-committing himself to a judicial inquiry-I shall pursue it with Opposition Front-Bench Members to see whether it is the case. The Government have discussed whether a judicial inquiry would be right, but have concluded that it would not be right, not least because the judicial system in this country is performing a very effective function in the courts, which is where it belongs. I also want to put it on the record that a dangerous confusion is emerging between rendition-sometimes called extraordinary rendition-and torture. They are not the same thing, although both are reprehensible and contrary to the laws and spirit of this country. However, it is important that we do not confuse the two. In Mr. Mohamed's case, there are allegations that he was subject to both, but they are not the same; they are separate. However, they are both wrong and they both need to be addressed fully. In respect of the hon. Gentleman's main point, however, I do not think that the conclusion to be drawn from today's events is that a judicial inquiry is necessary; I draw the conclusion that the judiciary is performing its function extremely vigilantly. [Official Report, 22 February 2010, Vol. 506, c. 2MC.]

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the question of Mr. Binyam Mohamed and what happened to him in 2002 in Pakistan? When did the British Government know about it, what protests have been made and are they satisfied that there is not a continuation of this practice, either in Pakistan or in other places, from where the US takes prisoners to some other destination? Furthermore, does he not think that Guantanamo Bay should have been closed many years ago and that we should have done much more to close it?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to imitate the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). There was a quartet there, but again one answer from the Foreign Secretary will suffice.

David Miliband: Yes, the Government have stood out against Guantanamo Bay for a very long time, but it is also a fact that the current US Administration are committed to closing Guantanamo Bay and are seeking to do so as fast as possible, and quite rightly so. However, I can answer in the affirmative to both the questions asked by my hon. Friend. In respect of whether those practices are continuing, it is absolutely clear from the executive orders that President Obama has issued, among other things, that those practices have been completely banned by the US, which puts it into line with our position.

Henry Bellingham: In his statement, the Secretary of State stated that Mr. Mohamed is an Ethiopian national formerly resident in the UK. What is his current immigration status, and why was he allowed back into the UK, especially when it was obvious that he was going to seek legal aid to mount a challenge in our courts?

David Miliband: The Government judge that our interests in securing the closure of Guantanamo Bay were so strong that it was right that British residents, as well as British citizens, be given the chance to come back to the UK. We did that in the case of nine British citizens and five British residents. One British resident, Mr. Shaker Aamer, continues to reside in Guantanamo Bay, and we continue to press the case for his release. We took the decision on the basis that the closure of Guantanamo Bay was right and that we had to play our part in it. However, it is also right that Mr. Mohamed, along with four others, was a UK resident at the time of his extraordinary rendition-not rendition from this country, but from within south Asia.

Paul Flynn: This dreadful conduct is alien to our history and principles, and will certainly increase the risk of terrorism to this country. In the Secretary of State's stock-taking, will he consider the possibility of returning to the fully independent, British foreign policy that served us so well in the Vietnam war?

David Miliband: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that British foreign policy is fully independent. However, it is not autarkic: although we pursue our foreign policy with our allies, we also have to pursue it with people who are not our allies in order to achieve our goals. We are absolutely committed to doing what is right for the United Kingdom, and that involves a very close relationship with the United States. However, that does not mean that we always agree with them, although I am pleased to say that we agree with the current Administration more than with some previous ones. That does not mean, however, that we agree on everything. That is the right way to proceed.

Martin Linton: Will this case speed up the release and return of Mr. Shaker Aamer, to whom the Foreign Secretary referred and whose family live in my constituency? Is there any intelligence material about the torture of Mr. Aamer in our possession, and could that be a reason behind the reluctance of the US Government to agree to his return to this country?

David Miliband: I do not believe that this case has any bearing on the Shaker Aamer case. We continue to press the case for his release, and we will continue to do so with all due effort. I know that my hon. Friend supports us strongly on that.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Bob Ainsworth: Today, I am publishing the review of the armed forces compensation scheme that I announced on 27 July last year. I would like to thank Lord Boyce for producing a rigorous report that has looked at every aspect of the compensation scheme, including the principles underlying it; the process by which a claim is made; and the amount of compensation provided. I will implement all of Lord Boyce's recommendations in their entirety. This will include: raising by about one third the annual payment made to the youngest and most seriously injured personnel throughout their lives to help them to deal with the ongoing effects of their injuries; retaining the top award level of more than £500,000 for the lump sum payments but increasing all other levels by up to two thirds; and increasing the maximum award for those suffering from mental illness as a result of their service.
	We ask a lot of our armed forces. On a daily basis, I see evidence of their bravery, selfless commitment and determination. The job they do on our behalf is unique. There is no such thing as a risk-free military operation, and those serving on the front line in Afghanistan know this, accept it and are committed to getting the job done. They are protecting Britain's national security by denying safe haven to violent extremists, and the sacrifice has been significant. Earlier, the Prime Minister paid tribute to Private Sean McDonald, Corporal Johnathan Moore from First Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland and Warrant Officer Class 2 David Markland from 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers. They lost their lives in the past few days. These were professional, courageous, and committed men, and each death is a personal tragedy for the families, friends and comrades of those killed.
	In Afghanistan today, British troops are fighting as part of an international security assistance force campaign to seize the initiative across southern Afghanistan. It will be hard, and we must brace ourselves for further casualties. There will always be a human cost when our forces are committed to action, and we have a moral obligation to honour their commitment and fulfil our responsibilities.
	When servicemen and women are injured, we must ensure that they are provided with the right support-not just financial help, but medical care and through-life support. I am pleased that today's National Audit Office report recognises that the medical care provided to our armed forces on the battlefield, in theatre and back here at home is first class. The advances made in medical care mean that many people who would previously have died of their injuries now survive and are able to lead fulfilling lives. Today we are announcing an extra 30 beds at the defence medical rehabilitation centre at Headley Court, as well as updating and expanding the existing facilities. For some people, injuries will mean that their career path in the armed forces is inevitably different. General Richards, the Chief of the General Staff, has been looking at that closely, and will be announcing shortly how the Army will ensure that everything is done to support soldiers in such circumstances.
	We have a further duty to those injured due to service. They must have a just and fair compensation scheme. We must remember that the current scheme is a huge improvement on the war pensions scheme that it replaced in 2005. Unlike under the old system, injured servicemen and women are able to claim compensation while they are still in service. It is important that the new scheme is regularly reviewed, and that we act to ensure that it continues to evolve to meet people's needs where it has been shown to fall short. For example, in 2008 we doubled the top levels of compensation payments, as part of the service personnel Command Paper.
	Last summer I asked the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, to lead the latest review. To support him, we put in place an independent scrutiny group of external experts, including those from the medical and legal fields, and representatives of the service charities. I would like to thank them for their work on the review. When put in place in 2005, the new compensation scheme was designed to ensure that those with the most serious injuries received the greatest support. I am pleased that Lord Boyce has concluded that that is the right approach, and that the scheme lives up to that promise.
	As Lord Boyce has recommended, we will make the following notable changes. As I said earlier, we will increase most of the lump sum compensation payments. The top level will remain at £570,000, but every other level will go up. We will also increase tax-free annual payments to those who suffer the most serious injuries, to take account of future career prospects that they might otherwise have expected. For the youngest soldiers suffering life-changing injuries, those payments will be more than 35 per cent. higher. We will increase the top-level award for those who suffer mental illness because of their service, as well as increasing their annual guaranteed income payment.
	We will ensure that the scheme treats those with multiple injuries more fairly. In future, all injuries from a single incident will be recognised as part of the compensation award. A new fast-track interim payment will be introduced, so that those injured can receive some money before the entire claims process is completed. We will extend the time that people have to make and to appeal claims. That will include taking further account of the late onset of a condition, which will particularly help with mental illness. We will create a new opportunity for exceptional reviews after 10 years if health conditions unexpectedly and significantly deteriorate. When making a claim, the burden of proof required will remain the same, but allowances will be made where records have not been properly maintained. We will also make a range of other improvements recommended by Lord Boyce, such as increasing payments to widows.
	The injuries that those in our armed forces receive can be complex in the extreme. Ensuring that the compensation scheme is fair and just is not straightforward. One size does not fit all. Changes to the scheme must be guided by expert evidence. We will create an independent expert medical group to advise on the right level of compensation payments, as the knowledge and treatment of certain medical conditions improve. Together, all those measures will help us to give the scheme the flexibility that it has previously lacked.
	As I said when I announced the review last year, in an exception to the normal rule, all those who have received compensation for their injuries under the armed forces compensation scheme since 2005 will benefit from the improvements that we are announcing today. Those in our armed forces must have the confidence that if they are injured, they will receive the help that they need. With the implementation of Lord Boyce's recommendations, we have a scheme that fully recognises the severity of their injuries and helps to provide for their future.
	It is not in our power to undo the injury, but the changes that I am announcing today will ensure that we do what is right and proper for those who sacrifice so much to keep this country safe and protected.

Liam Fox: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior sight of it. I would also like to join him in paying tribute to those who have recently lost their lives in Afghanistan. The whole House is united in respect for their bravery and their commitment to our security here at home. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends at this uniquely distressing time for them.
	I would also like to add my thanks for the work done on this subject by Lord Boyce. It has been carried out with all the clarity and efficiency that we have come to expect from him, over many years of distinguished public service. There is much to be welcomed in the Government's statement today, but we will of course need to examine the detail of its implementation before we can make a full judgment.
	As Lord Boyce reminds us, the review was carried out in response to the public fury at the Court of Appeal case involving Corporal Duncan and Marine McWilliams. The sight of the Government trying to reduce compensation scandalised the country. Lord Boyce said that the judgment should be taken further, to provide even greater clarity about some aspects of the scheme, so let me question the Secretary of State further on a number of issues.
	Lord Boyce has said that there is considerable scope for improvement in the current, unsatisfactory way in which the scheme is communicated to all members of the armed forces, their families and interested stakeholders. We are talking about the Government's scheme, and therefore the Government's failings. How will that be put right, and who will oversee this, to ensure that the Government do not get it wrong again? In particular, what role will there be for independent scrutiny?
	Next is mental health, which the Secretary of State mentioned. The low priority that we give to mental illness in this country is a sad indictment of our values. The way it was treated in the past in our armed forces was a sad dereliction of duty. Today marks a welcome step forward. How will the proposed expert group be set up? By whom and with whom will it be set up, and how will Parliament get a chance to be updated on its progress? Mental illness is an issue of the utmost importance to Members in all parts of the House, and I am sure that we would wish for some transparency on it.
	We welcome the extension, from five to seven years, of the period in which a claim can be submitted, but how exactly does that fit in with the extended periods for presentation of mental illness? As the Secretary of State well knows, post-traumatic stress disorder can take many years to present-up to 14 years, according to the latest figures from Combat Stress. How will the system be amended to ensure that those who present late with such problems do not find themselves excluded? Do we not need to find ways as a country proactively to seek out those who might be at risk, to prevent some of those problems from emerging, as our party has been proposing for some time?
	On the subject of medical facilities, the Secretary of State said in his statement,
	we are announcing an extra 30 beds at...Headley Court.
	The written ministerial statement says, We are therefore now working on plans to provide up to 30 extra ward beds later this year. That is not quite the same thing. How soon can we expect the extra beds, and what factors might delay them? Is the Secretary of State concerned by today's NAO report, which suggests that our ability to deal with significant increases in casualties might be limited? Does he share the anxiety expressed by the NAO when it suggests that we are just coping medically-a position that is less than ideal at the start of a major offensive?
	The Secretary of State has announced what amounts to a retrospective review of settlements made under the 2005 scheme. I assume that I am correct in that assessment. That is a big undertaking, and it would of course be unnecessary if the Government had got this right at that time. What is the timeline for this process? How will it be structured? How many cases will be involved in the retrospective review, and what estimates have been made of the cost?
	Finally, may I raise a point about the reserves? We welcome Lord Boyce's suggestion that a factor should be introduced into the guaranteed income payment scheme to take account of the average range of promotions forgone while still in service because of injury. The whole House will agree with that, but how does it relate to reservists who might face long-term loss of civilian income because of the nature of their injuries? What is the equivalent compensation for them? That is especially important given our increased use of the reserves, not least in Afghanistan.
	Our armed forces take unique risks and play a unique role in our national life. Is the Secretary of State confident that the money exists in the MOD budget fully to carry out the changes that will result from the review that he has set out today? Many people in our country will pay a high price for this Government's colossal economic mismanagement. Our injured armed forces should not be among them.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about our armed forces and about Lord Boyce, who has done an excellent job; I am glad that that is recognised across the House. We took the case to court, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because we had to maintain the principles, the clarity and the fairness of the scheme. That was recognised by the judge. The issues that were raised at the time led us to bring forward the review, and the individuals concerned will benefit from the changes in the same way that any other individual will benefit.
	On communication, yes, we do need to make every effort to ensure that those across the armed forces are informed of their rights and entitlements. We are putting in better systems to help those who are injured to get through what is a very complex process at a time when they are feeling particularly vulnerable. That is being overseen by the compensation advisory group that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) runs. That group brings in people from outside the MOD; we get assistance from service charities and others, and we take their advice on an ongoing basis. We-and, indeed, the single services-also need to step up the support that we give to people, and to ensure that it is adequate and that they know the situation that they face.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the symptoms of mental illness often come to light only after many years. The timelines for the scheme will allow someone to make an application or an appeal after their diagnosis has been made. It will therefore not matter how long it takes for an illness to come to light. People will have an extended timeline after the date of their diagnosis in which to come forward and make a claim or an appeal. There will be no restriction on people with conditions such as PTSD, which often come to light many years after an individual's service career has ended.
	I hope that the House accepts that the NAO report said in no uncertain terms that the treatment available in theatre and back here at Selly Oak and Headley Court was first class. It does not criticise it in any way. Yes, of course it flags up the potential need for further capacity. We were already aware of that and planning for it-as illustrated by our announcement that we are seeking to provide another 30 beds at Headley Court-but we will have to do far more than that.
	Approximately 6,000 people have made claims under the scheme since 2005. We have always said that that scheme would need to be reviewed. Anyone who examines the record can see that we have said that quite openly. We are dealing with a complex situation, and we made the commitment regularly to review the scheme. We brought forward this review, which is particularly thorough-I think we have Lord Boyce to thank for a lot of that-but we always said that we would backdate the benefits to the start of the scheme so that people did not have to worry that their claim might be overtaken by subsequent improvements that we introduced. The hon. Gentleman asked about reservists. They will benefit, as well as the regular forces, from the improvements that I have announced today.

Nick Harvey: I echo the words of tribute to those who have fallen in the past few days in Afghanistan; I salute their courage and valour.
	I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and, indeed, for the briefing earlier today. The Government were right to introduce the scheme in 2005, but today's statement shows that it has not worked as well as it might have done since then. I am pleased that the Government have changed course, because, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, the sight of court cases fought over levels of compensation was not edifying. Admiral Boyce has done a very good job. He and his team have made some positive recommendations, which I welcome, on the levels of compensation, the easier time scales, the slight readjustment of the burden of proof and, in particular, the greater recognition of mental illness than has been the case to date.
	What is it all going to cost? I know that that is hard to estimate, but the Government seem a little coy about it. There is a strong moral argument, whatever it costs, that it is the right thing to do, but I would welcome an estimate-they must have one-of what they think it will cost.
	Lord Boyce said that he was trying to establish a system involving a comparator between the awards and those in civil life. I know that it is hard to make such comparisons, because the scheme involves an ongoing payment, which would be most unusual in civil cases. The Secretary of State says that the scheme will be kept under constant review, which is welcome, but I urge him to guarantee that the comparator with civil compensation remains part of the ongoing review process.
	The Secretary of State also said in his statement that the quality of medical intervention was so advanced that many more lives were now saved than in the past. That is undoubtedly correct. It means that, at the point of the initial intervention, more compensation is needed than has ever been needed before. I welcome the fact that the statement acknowledges that. As he keeps these matters under review, will he also recognise that we will be entering uncharted territory, and that we might need to come back after several years, or even decades, to see how those people with very serious problems have been doing over the longer term, and whether their level of support needs to be revisited on account of factors that we cannot anticipate or even imagine at this stage?

Bob Ainsworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for many of his comments. He mentioned the 2005 scheme. Let us remember that that represented a massive improvement on what went before. There was no lump sum payment and no ability to claim during service before the introduction of that scheme. I make no apology for wanting to make a significant difference with a lump sum payment for the most seriously injured. We did that in 2008, and Lord Boyce has now effectively readjusted the differentials to take into account the improvements that we made. That represents yet further improvement.
	What will it cost? I did not say to Lord Boyce that we must keep within a particular envelope, as I do not believe that that is appropriate. I hope that hon. Members of all parties would agree with that. We have a commitment-a moral commitment-to these individuals that we must meet, and we have to meet the costs. Yes, they will have to come from the defence budget, but I do not think that it is unaffordable. We should not place it within any financial constraint: it has to come first and it has to be funded in full.
	As to the need for ongoing reviews, I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, by building in this expert medical panel, which will start considering issues such as hearing and other complicated difficulties that people have to confront, Lord Boyce has potentially brought some flexibility to the system. I cannot say to what degree that will need to be reviewed, because the expert panel will continually be able to bring back issues into the development of the compensation payable.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the guaranteed income payment is tax-free and inflation-proofed, so we will not have to review that. I am personally particularly pleased-this is one area that I wanted to see addressed-that we have effectively uplifted the guaranteed income payment to take into account the progression that a young soldier is likely to have made during his career. That is a big improvement, because it is not right to assume that a 20-year-old would have stayed at the same level of remuneration for the rest of his life. His ability to have climbed the ranks and to have made progress in life must be taken into account.
	I believe that we have a pretty robust situation now, but of course we must keep it under review. My hon. Friend the veterans Minister will do so in consultation with the groups that have helped us. We have had the involvement and support of the Royal British Legion, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations and the War Widows Association. The Families Federation was also represented on the group that supported us. We will continue to take those views into account.

Gisela Stuart: I particularly welcome the announcement of the extra 30 beds at Headley Court, given the increase in exceptional survival rates. The Secretary of State also mentioned the potential increase in casualties over the coming weeks. Will he have talks with the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that in areas such as the west midlands, where Selly Oak is doing an exceptionally good job, neighbouring hospitals that are perfectly capable of providing the necessary extra care do provide it?

Bob Ainsworth: The reason why, over time, we will have to make increasing provision at Headley Court is not necessarily that the level of injuries will increase. It is because people are having to return for further or repeat treatment at the same time as the new injuries and new casualties are being dealt with. Therefore, there is a gradual increase in pressure on Headley Court, which we have to plan for and we are planning for; we will make certain that we deal with it. As to the current casualty level, we receive fantastic support from Selly Oak and from the Birmingham medical facilities overall. We plan surge capability so that we are able to put in additional medical services, which have been absolutely superb. We have talked to people in those services and made sure that eventualities can be catered for.

James Arbuthnot: I welcome the statement. The Secretary of State and the veterans Minister deserve our thanks and our congratulations, as does Lord Boyce, not only on the changes made in the scheme but on the open way in which they have gone about that. The amendments to the scheme do not differentiate between injuries caused on active service in Helmand and those caused while training in the UK, for example. I entirely support that, but will the Secretary of State set out his thinking on why that should be the case?

Bob Ainsworth: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I take his comments seriously in his capacity as Chairman of the Defence Committee. We get constructive criticism from him, but also a lot of support. We both appreciate that. We have thought about and discussed with various individuals over time whether there should be any differential between operational injuries and other injuries. It would be enormously difficult to do that, and I think that it would break the ethos of One together that applies to our armed forces. What would be operational? Pre-deployment training and all the other dangerous jobs that we expect people to do are not necessarily in the operational theatre in Afghanistan. We have always thought about it, but have set our face against differentiating injuries in service and other injuries. I have always been strong on that, and I think that it is the right decision.

Harry Cohen: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement and on the work of his ministerial team. Will he consider backdating eligibility, perhaps to the beginning of the Iraq war or even to the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign in 2001? Will he also consider giving current and ex-servicemen suffering mental health difficulties a statutory right to an assessment of their needs?

Bob Ainsworth: There is a statutory right to an assessment of needs. Lord Boyce looked at backdating. The answer is in some ways contained within my hon. Friend's question. Why do we not consider backdating to this date, that date or whichever date? The previous scheme goes back to 1917. Where do we draw the line? The complexity is enormous. Benefits have been paid under completely different arrangements over time, from which other issues potentially flow. I have concentrated on trying to ensure that this scheme is as good as it possibly can be by continually updating it and by continually being prepared to look at it. The flexibility that Lord Boyce has built into the scheme as well as the other improvements are of real benefit.

Gary Streeter: I also warmly welcome the statement, which I know will be well received by many of my constituents who are serving armed forces personnel. May I encourage the Secretary of State to look at the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in so far as it applies to this issue? As he well knows, serving personnel cannot sue the Crown for compensation for diseases they contract-asbestosis, for example, through working in a dockyard or naval base-whereas civilians who happen to be working alongside them can sue. Is that not a matter that the Government should now also consider?

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, of course we must keep the rights of our armed forces under constant review. The sacrifice that they are prepared to make-the position that they are prepared to put themselves in-is unique and therefore justifies a no-fault and improved compensation scheme such as this one. I recognise that many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have served the nation over a period of time, and that some have paid the ultimate sacrifice and some have been injured.

Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the level of compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for an off-duty soldier who receives serious head injuries as a result of being assaulted in the UK will still be considerably more than the compensation available under the armed forces compensation scheme if that same young man suffers serious head injuries as a result of being shot in Afghanistan while on active service for his country?

Bob Ainsworth: Lord Boyce tried as best he could to consider comparators in this country and abroad. That is enormously difficult, because the structure of other countries' armed forces and welfare states is very different from our own. Lord Boyce could not say, did not say and shied away again this morning from saying that this country has the best scheme; ours is among the most generous. This is not a contested court-case scheme; it is a no-fault compensation scheme for our armed forces.

James Gray: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the three soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan in recent days, and whose bodies will be carried down through RAF Lyneham and through the high street in Wootton Bassett on Friday. Does he agree that the fact that the number of fatalities-bad as it is-is not greater is due to the outstanding work of the air medical evacuation teams and the medical emergency response teams at Camp Bastion, which ensure that soldiers leave the front line, go through Bastion and return to Birmingham as quickly as possible? Those people do a fantastic job, and they are worthy of praise.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, the care must begin long before Bastion. Getting people off the battlefield and back to Bastion as quickly as possible is life-saving, and the treatment and stabilisation provided at Bastion are magnificently impressive. Many skills are also immediately available throughout the Birmingham health authority-not just in Selly Oak-and at Headley Court. Anyone who has met an injured soldier will know of the huge desire of the injured to reach Headley Court. They know that once they are there, they are on the path to recovery, and that helps them to focus on the need to make progress.

William McCrea: Many Members, including me, have visited our soldiers in Afghanistan, and I agree with the Secretary of State that our soldiers have displayed extreme bravery, commitment and determination and deserve our wholehearted support.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's adoption of all Lord Boyce's recommendations, including those on many levels of compensation. I also welcome the announcement of an extra 30 beds at the rehabilitation centre, and the commitment to updating and expanding the existing facilities. When does the Secretary of State expect the beds to be provided and the facilities to be updated?

Bob Ainsworth: We invested £24 million in the updating of Headley Court a while ago. We have also received fantastic support from Help for Heroes, which has provided a swimming pool. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact date for the provision of the 30 beds, because there are processes to be gone through.
	Headley Court does a marvellous job and has an amazing reputation among the armed forces, but we have to plan for the future as well. The site is very constricted, and long-term thinking is needed. We must ensure that we can cope during the many years that lie ahead, because our responsibilities will not go away when a particular operation goes away or the media focus goes away. We, as a nation, will have an ongoing responsibility to the people who have made sacrifices on our behalf.

Hugo Swire: The Secretary of State is absolutely right about our duty of care to our wounded. As he said, the expansion of Headley Court is constrained. Has his Department had any discussions with private foundations or the private sector about a possible new location for a different sort of home?

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, and I think that we made people aware, in principle, that such discussions were going on. The trustees of Headley Court are certainly aware of the long-term planning, because it is taking place in collaboration with them. As I have said, the last thing that we can afford to do is lose the fantastic reputation that Headley Court has gained for first-class rehabilitation. We must ensure that whatever facility we have in the future can cope with not only the quality of care, but the quantity of care that may be needed.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his excellent statement, and for this morning's briefing by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and Lord Boyce. It is very welcome that all political parties in the House are being briefed on an equal basis, and I look forward to the continuation of that practice. I also commend the work of Lord Boyce and his colleagues. The report is excellent, and I am extremely pleased that the Government have accepted all its recommendations.
	However, will the Secretary of State look closely at the issue of the bereavement grant, details of which can be found on page 41 of the report? It is being treated differently from the other forms of compensation that are being uprated. Although the 25 per cent. increase in the grant is welcome, there is to be no increase for people in receipt of that grant between 2005 and now. The 25 per cent. increase is intended to reflect increases in salaries. Will the Secretary of State consider carefully whether it is possible to taper the increase for families who lost loved ones between 2005 and the present day?

Bob Ainsworth: Lord Boyce's recommendation in that regard is different from the rest. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the increase in the grant is a recognition of the need to take account of pay increases since 2005. We should be looking forward rather than back. Of course we will note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am currently minded to accept Lord Boyce's recommendations as written in view of the logic behind them.

Bob Spink: I warmly congratulate the Government on today's announcement. Will the Secretary of State join me in also congratulating the service charities, particularly SSAFA-the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association-and the Royal British Legion, on their work with veterans and injured servicemen? Will he have a word with his colleagues in other Departments to ensure that the funds of such charities are not diverted because local councils are refusing to provide appropriate and proper disability grants, so that veterans and injured servicemen returning from service can adapt their homes in order to lead lives that are as near to normal as possible?

Bob Ainsworth: Under the service personnel Command Paper, which we produced in 2008, we have set up an ongoing review and an annual report. The service families federations and charities help us to determine the way in which other departments, local authorities and the rest of society serve veterans and our armed forces. That is an ongoing process. The last thing we can afford is for the Command Paper to give rights that just lie there gathering dust and never make progress. We must constantly examine new issues as they arise, and confront authorities when they do not treat our armed forces properly. The organisations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are a huge help in identifying those needs so that we can start to address them together.

Brian Jenkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones)-the veterans Minister-and Lord Boyce on the work that they have done. I think that we should all congratulate them and support their work wholeheartedly.
	May I raise the issue of late-onset conditions and, in particular, cases of mental illness? I know about the compensation advisory group, but how many people out there in the wider communities-GPs, and those who supply mental health services-are aware of the path to that group, and is it able to present cases, especially those of mental health patients, to the compensation board? Who is there to represent those people and ensure that they are given a fair deal?

Bob Ainsworth: The compensation advisory group consists of a panel of people who have worked and will continue to work with the veterans Minister in identifying issues and ensuring that they are brought up to date, and they do that very well. It is not their responsibility to ensure that rights are communicated properly to all our service personnel. It is the responsibility of the Government, the chain of command and the single services to provide the appropriate information. According to one of Lord Boyce's recommendations, we simply have not been good enough at that. We must and will ensure that that information is communicated all the way down to people in a timely manner, and I know that my hon. Friend the veterans Minister will drive it through as best he can.

Points of Order

Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have just released a written ministerial statement on the vexed subject of local government restructuring, which is going to force expensive and undemocratic restructuring on local government in Devon and Norfolk, and cast uncertainty over the future of the status of Suffolk. It represents a Government U-turn, reversing the position of the previous Secretary of State, and it ignores the advice of the Boundary Commission and introduces a wholly new concept of county constitutional conventions. Given the significant legal and financial implications of this statement, should it not have been an oral statement, so that Members on both sides of the House whose constituents are directly affected could properly debate the issue? The timing also raises serious questions about the probity of civil service activity so close to a general election. Do you not agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this statement should have been the subject of a debate, and that to issue a statement of such significance in written form just hours before the House rises does this House a grave disservice?

Hugo Swire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the most naked form of opportunism I have ever witnessed in this place. The fact is that the Government have now ignored the criteria by which they originally judged the issue. They have overturned a decision taken in principle-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I think I have grasped the heart of the point of order of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), and I do not think we should go down the debating route. The hon. Lady will understand that she cannot draw me into giving an opinion as to how a particular matter should be presented to the House. She will know that it is open to Ministers to decide how they will inform the House of a particular matter. I do not believe that it is an immutable, or necessarily a common, practice that local government boundary changes will always be announced by an oral statement, and there will be further opportunities for the House to debate the matter the hon. Lady raises. On the timing, again it is not for me to comment, except, perhaps, to say that we are all concerned when something comes out on the eve of a recess, which means there is a delay before it can be further considered, but, again, the timing is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Lady has made her protest about this, and I am sure there will be other ways in which she can pursue the substance of the matter once the House resumes.

Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wishes to come to the Chamber to make a statement from the Dispatch Box crowing about the decision to make Exeter a unitary authority, because that is all about trying to save one Labour seat, rather than doing the right thing for the people of Devon?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman chose to try to take that comment down the route of a point of order, because I thought I had already explained to his colleague that we cannot have a debate on this matter. The Chair realises that this is of serious concern to Members representing the affected areas, but I am afraid that we cannot debate it now, whatever the feelings of hon. Members on the subject. That feeling has been registered, however.

BILL PRESENTED
	  
	Department for Work and Pensions (Electronic File Retention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Harry Cohen presented a Bill to exempt the Department for Work and Pensions from statutory requirements to retain files in written form where it holds electronic files of the information in an approved form; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March, and to be printed (Bill 6 6 ).

Water Tariffs Bill

Motion for leave to bring in  a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Nick Harvey: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the current level of water poverty by local government area; to require water and sewerage companies to offer a social tariff to all customers within the water poverty threshold; to require the Office of Water Services to set common tariff levels for all water and sewerage companies; to require water and sewerage companies to contribute to an Infrastructure Investment Fund; and for connected purposes.
	I make no apology for returning yet again to the long-standing subject of water prices, which have risen by 42 per cent. in real terms since 1989. An enormous amount of time has passed, and water tariff payers, particularly in the south-west of England, have waited a long time for the matter to be addressed. I and colleagues from the south-west have raised this matter in the House on many occasions, and time is running out for the Government to address this crippling injustice before the election, which will be held soon.
	The population of the south-west will be all too familiar with the following figures, but let me remind the House of them once again. South West Water customers pay the highest water bills in the country: they are almost 50 per cent. higher than the national average bills. Part of the reason for that is the manner in which the industry was privatised in 1989. At the time, the water infrastructure in the south-west was in a dire state, but the Government did not provide any mechanism by which SWW would be assisted in meeting the costs of bringing it into a better condition. Instead, they allowed the company to pass on to customers all the costs of updating the infrastructure. As a result, the huge burden of cleaning up the coastline has, very unfairly, fallen on water customers in our region, with 3 per cent. of the population paying for the clean sweep of more than 30 per cent. of the UK's coastline.
	The south-west population is probably the least able of any region to shoulder this burden. Residents of Devon and Cornwall have the lowest incomes in England, and they are considerably lower than the UK average. Furthermore, more than 22 per cent. of the south-west's population are pensioners living on fixed incomes, which is a higher proportion than anywhere else in England. All too often in the spring, any increase in state pension is immediately counteracted by increases in water bills or council tax. The need for reform is clear, therefore.
	SWW operates the WaterSure social tariff scheme, for which it received 6,782 applications in 2008-09, despite the fact that the eligibility requirements are quite stringent. One of the requirements is that the customer must have a meter, which can be difficult in practice, particularly in blocks of flats, where the logistics are challenging. Nevertheless, SWW has received twice as many applications for such a tariff as any other water company.
	As I have said, this problem dates back 20 years to privatisation, and I am very pleased that the Government commissioned a report on water charges, conducted and published by Anna Walker. That is clearly a step in the right direction. The report came up with some sensible solutions: greater use of social tariffs; the possibility of a contribution to SWW from the Treasury to recognise the extra costs it has faced; or a levy on other regional water companies to help meet SWW's extra costs-which is the idea my Bill pursues. Some of the report's other proposals are more controversial, such as moving to universal water metering, or putting a levy on holidaymakers' hotel bills. The Government have had sufficient time to consider the report, and the time has now come for some decisions and actions.
	My Bill places on Ofwat a duty to set exactly the same water tariffs across the entire country. Bills must be equalised at the current average across the country as a whole, rather than SWW's level of bills being inflicted on everybody else. That would be the fairest system, and we should be steering towards it. My Bill also calls on the Government to recognise a new measure of water poverty, along the lines of the well-established fuel poverty principle, and it imposes on all water companies a duty to provide a social tariff to everybody who falls under this threshold-and not to have as many exemptions in place as, for example, the SWW scheme that I have just mentioned.
	The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has defined water poverty as being when a household's water bill equates to more than 3 per cent. of its income after tax. There are winter fuel payments, but there is no similar assistance in respect of water poverty. More widely available social tariffs must be provided, and water poverty must become as widely accepted a concept as fuel poverty. We need to overcome the current obstacles to achieving those goals.
	If the same tariff were to be set in every part of the country, the impact on different companies would vary sharply. If those companies were ordered off their current tariff level and on to a common tariff level, that would have widely differing impacts on their ability to fulfil their various regulatory requirements. Some would find that they had a cash bonanza and others would find that they had a shortfall in trying to meet their obligations. The purpose of an investment fund is to provide a mechanism through which the abilities to meet their obligations could also be equalised in way that would mirror the equalisation of the water tariff. Ofwat would determine what each water company should pay into the investment fund and allocate the resources from the fund to enable each of the different companies to fulfil the obligations that fall on them.
	One has to recognise that there have been significant developments in the south-west in the years since privatisation. The Clean Sweep programme for the coastline has been a great success but the infrastructure that has been put in place needs ongoing capital maintenance. Of course, more requirements are being put on all the water companies about the quality of their drinking water, action to tackle leaks and all their other duties. There is no perfect mechanism, but if we established a central fund into which the companies made a contribution, depending on the level of profitability that the new equalised tariff gave them, those who were going to suffer a shortfall could draw the money out of it. Of course, if the Government were to consider further Anna Walker's recommendation that Treasury funds should be part of the equation, the central fund would also be a mechanism through which that could be done. However, it is beyond the scope of a private Member's Bill to propose that such a thing should be forthcoming from the Treasury.
	This has been a long-running sore and it is not going to go away. When we take those with the lowest incomes in the country-those with very low disposable incomes-and place on them bills that cripple their household budgets, and when they realise that the cost of a bath in the south-west is vastly greater than that in other parts of the country, it prompts a simple question of fairness that has yet to be properly addressed.
	The south-west has great assets that people from the whole country enjoy when they come on holiday. Among those assets are the clean beaches. It seems to me that everybody throughout the country needs to make a contribution to that. When we come to London, for example, and enjoy the benefits available for visitors, the central taxpayer has made a considerable contribution to those great attractions. It is simply a question of fairness. Twenty years after privatisation, there has been no progress at all. For the first time, Anna Walker's report makes it clear in an independent study commissioned by Government that there is a real issue to address. It is not a question of the south-west whinging; it can be seen objectively that an injustice exists and a variety of measures have been proposed to put that right.
	This has gone on too long. The time for action has come and my Bill would be a means by which that action could be taken.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Nick Harvey, Dan Rogerson, Mr. Colin Breed, Richard Younger-Ross, Mr. Adrian Sanders, Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Linda Gilroy and Alison Seabeck present the Bill.
	Nick Harvey accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March , and to be printed (Bill 67).

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment that appears on the Order Paper.

Ian Pearson: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2009 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate the information provided to the European Commission under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. Each year, the Government report to the Commission on the UK's economic and budgetary position and our main economic policy measures, in line with our commitments under the stability and growth pact, by formally sharing information from the pre-Budget report.
	A year ago, as the world economy faced crisis, the European Council agreed a European economic recovery plan, which rightly called for a fiscal stimulus from member states equivalent to about 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. The Council encouraged member states to allow borrowing to rise to support the economy, acknowledging that this would lead to a deepening of deficits in the short-term and that the stability and growth pact should be applied in a manner that reflects the current exceptional circumstances.
	We welcome the publication of the European economic recovery plan, which showed that the Government were right to take bold action in the 2008 PBR to support the economy through a fiscal stimulus and to provide further support for actions to frontload public expenditure and assist small and medium-sized businesses.
	Last year, the global economy is forecast to have had the longest period of sustained negative growth in 60 years. It was against that backdrop that the pre-Budget report was delivered last year. That PBR is reported on in this document to the Commission.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that, having regard to the crisis in Greece and in the eurozone as a whole, as has been widely reported, the reality is that the stability and growth pact is simply not working and that the words contained in the pre-Budget report indicate that all the Government are doing is shunting the whole issue on on the basis of wishful thinking?

Ian Pearson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have gone through exceptional times in the global economy and that has affected all European economies. As he will be aware, according to the figures, 20 countries are in what would be called the excessive deficit procedure-that is, they have a deficit of above 3 per cent. of GDP. There are good reasons for that. The matter has been debated extensively at the European Council and there is a commitment across Europe to co-ordinate economic policies and to ensure sustainable public finances in all member states over the medium term. Everybody in Europe has recognised, however, that we have had to do some pretty exceptional things and that has affected all our economies.

Shailesh Vara: Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, will he confirm that Britain has a higher budget deficit than that of Greece?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman will know the figures well. It is true that the budget deficit in the UK has increased-it has increased in pretty much every member state. Later in my speech, I shall talk more about it.
	It is widely recognised by most commentators that Government action has helped to limit the impact of the recession. Indeed, the initial figures released last month show that the economy posted growth of 0.1 per cent. in the final quarter of 2009, reflecting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's forecast in the PBR that growth would return at the end of the year. As hon. Members will be aware from the pre-Budget report, growth is expected to pick up progressively to 1.25 per cent. in 2010 and 3.5 per cent. in 2011-12. I believe that that will be supported by net exports and investment, with the adjustment of the UK's flexible labour markets helping to bring spare capacity back into use.
	It is also clear that the Government have been right to be cautious about the prospects for the economy, and it is right that we should continue to support it. The shocks that this economy and economies around the world faced were entirely unprecedented. Withdrawing support that has helped us to get to this point would be exactly the wrong policy. I believe that we now face two challenges: securing the recovery and promoting long-term growth. They will both be essential in ensuring sound public finances, which will be necessary for the investment that we need in the future.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the PBR a plan for reducing the deficit by half within four years. As world economic prospects are still fragile, however, the PBR also announced the maintenance of support until recovery is secured. We have had this debate many times in the Chamber, and it is a matter of judgment when action should be taken to cut the deficit. We have always maintained that failing to offer support to the economy would risk the recovery and would damage the economy in the long term. That is why we have offered support to business to ease problems with cash flow and with access to bank lending, and that is why we have deferred tax rises and extended tax allowances. That includes the time to pay scheme, which has helped businesses to spread £4.8 billion-worth of tax payments over a timetable that they can afford. That is why we have frozen small companies' tax rates next year to help 850,000 businesses.
	We announced in the PBR that support for mortgage interest would provide cover for mortgage interest payments for those who have lost their jobs. That has been extended for a further six months. To date, the scheme has helped more than 220,000 people. It is important that families receive the help that they need through the tax and benefit system, and through the downturn, tax credits have provided extra help to 400,000 families whose income has fallen.
	The retail prices index was negative in September. That could have meant a reduction, or no increase, in benefits, because many benefits and tax credits are linked to September's RPI. We responded as a Government, however, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the basic state pension will rise by 2.5 per cent. in April. Other benefits, such as child benefit and some disability benefits, will rise by 1.5 per cent., giving real-terms increases to those who need them most.

David Gauke: Will the Minister confirm to the House that the real-terms increases in pensions will be clawed back from the following year's pension settlement?

Ian Pearson: I do not think that the situation is as the hon. Gentleman characterises it. As he will be aware, we make decisions at fiscal events. We have a Budget coming up in about six weeks' time, when we will make the Government's position clear.

David Gauke: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Ian Pearson: Let me make some progress.
	To ensure that we will not have a repeat of the financial crisis, the Government have, as the House is well aware, introduced wide-ranging reforms to the financial sector. As well as strengthening financial regulation, we will do all we can to ensure that banks pay due regard to risk and that remuneration policies are focused on the long-term health of the relevant institution. Again, we have already debated a number of these issues.
	We have put in place support to secure the recovery, but we have also taken action to meet the other challenge-the direction and long-term growth of the economy. The recession has had a marked impact on the labour market, but unemployment has risen by far less than was expected by independent forecasters. Indeed, the latest Office for National Statistics figures show that International Labour Organisation unemployment figures have fallen for the first time since 2008. In addition, the claimant count has fallen for the second consecutive month and by more than market expectations. None the less, certain groups, such as young people, have been particularly hard hit. That is why we announced in the PBR that every 18 to 24-year-old will be given work or training when they have been out of the labour market for six, rather than 12, months. I believe that investing in the skills of young people will not only prevent a lost generation of youth unemployment, which we have seen in previous recessions, but will also promote our long-term growth as an economy.

Jeremy Browne: I accept, as many reasonable-minded people would, that Government intervention can play a part in preventing unemployment from becoming worse than it otherwise would be. Does the Minister accept, however, that changing labour markets-the very flexible labour markets that he has just mentioned-also have a part to play? It might well be that 20 years ago, a fifth of a company's work force would have been sacked or would have resigned in such a situation, whereas now all of that work force might go from working a five-day week to working a four-day week. Under such an arrangement, nobody would lose their job, but the number of hours worked by that company would fall by 20 per cent.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to some of the benefits of having flexibility in the labour market. Indeed, there is already some evidence that what we have seen during this recession is not only far greater flexibility on the part of employers, but far greater flexibility on the part of employees than has been the case in previous recessions. Some companies have decided that they want to keep people on but that they will have to pay them less, and their work forces have agreed to that, and some companies have decided that some of their staff need to go on to short-time working. That flexible response has been to the benefit of many companies and the people who work in them.

David Gauke: indicated assent.

Ian Pearson: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. That flexibility is one of the great strengths of our actions. In the past 12 years, Labour Governments have also introduced changes to help people back into work, and those measures are another great strength at the current time. As a result of active Government support via labour market support to the unemployed, month after month, hundreds of thousands of people have found new job opportunities.
	The Government have also announced investment in key industries of the future, such as digital, bio and low-carbon technologies, in order to build a strong and more diverse economy and to help to drive long-term sustainable growth. In the PBR, we announced measures to support innovation and enterprise, such as introducing a patent box-a reduced rate of corporation tax on income that will be derived from patents from April 2013-to strengthen the incentives to invest in innovative industries and to ensure that the UK remains an attractive location for such innovation. Further, an additional £200 million-worth of funding for the strategic investment fund will support advanced, innovative industrial projects of strategic importance.
	It is vital to our future growth that investment is made in our infrastructure. We announced in the PBR further plans for rail electrification between Liverpool, Manchester and Preston, and we want to continue to ensure that our work force are equipped with the right skills for the future by giving financial support to up to 10,000 undergraduates from low-income backgrounds to take up short internships in industry, business and the professions.

Shailesh Vara: Given the Minister's optimistic tone, is he confident that the anaemic growth that we had in the last quarter will be bettered in this quarter?

Ian Pearson: I am not going to speculate on that. The Treasury's policy has always been to make financial projections at our major fiscal events-the Budget and the pre-Budget report-and we will do so shortly when the Chancellor announces the Budget. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the comments of independent commentators who provide forecasts, he will see that there has been a gradual increase in optimism about how the UK economy is likely to perform in 2010. That is welcome. As the Chancellor has said on many occasions, we are not out of the woods yet. That is why we have taken a deliberate policy decision to continue to support companies through what remain difficult economic times-by extending the enterprise finance guarantee, for example, as well as the time to pay arrangements that I have mentioned. It is clear that we must not only provide support for companies in the downturn, but that we must also take measures to rebuild our fiscal strength when recovery is firmly established. I shall go on to say something about that.
	Sound public finances are vital to our investment in the future and to ensuring that there are no further ramifications due to a crisis down the line. It is imperative that we consolidate in a way that supports growth, because, in turn, growth will make it easier to lower the deficit and to pay down debt. The Fiscal Responsibility Bill that we have already discussed in the House will enshrine in legislation the Government's plans to halve public sector borrowing as a share of gross domestic product by 2013-14. Other countries have taken similar approaches in terms of legislating, and some others are considering doing so. Indeed, the IMF regards giving fiscal consolidation a legislative backing to be one option that is worth pursuing.
	To maintain our fiscal sustainability, the PBR has already announced tax rises for those with the greatest ability to pay, while ensuring that those on the lowest incomes are protected. The restriction of pensions tax relief announced in the Budget will apply only to those with gross incomes of £150,000 and over, where gross income includes all pension contributions. There will be an additional 0.5 per cent. increase in employee, employer and self-employed national insurance contributions for those earning over £20,000, but we also recognise that slower spending growth will be essential if we are to reduce borrowing.
	We will work to eliminate waste, and we will cut some budgets and stop some programmes altogether. It is important to recognise that the PBR has already announced that £12 billion will be saved from greater efficiency, £5 billion from scaling back or cutting lower priorities, and £4.5 billion from reducing the cost of public sector pay and pensions.
	We must ensure investment in our future, but at the same we must protect our most important front-line services, the ones that people rely on-such as our schools, health care and the police. In the past, cutting public spending has led to long-term damage, and we do not want that to be repeated. That is clearly taken into account in the PBR, and the decisions that we have taken.

David Drew: One of the putative benefits of the EU, if there are any, is that it could take joint action against tax havens. What action are the British Government proposing to take with their EU partners to make sure that everyone is paying the right level of tax?

Ian Pearson: The EU has many benefits. I shall not list them, but having a home market of 500 million people is a significant one. Also, the level of the pound against the euro means that UK businesses have strong opportunities to export into the home market of other member states.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked specifically about tax havens, and he will be aware that a lot of work has been going on, in the EU and at G20 level, to ensure greater tax transparency. A number of initiatives have been launched in this area: he is right to highlight the issue, as it has been and will remain on the global, and not just the European, agenda.
	In the EU, we are taking the appropriate co-ordinated action to reduce deficits, in line with the recovery of the European economy. Twenty member states are reducing their deficits broadly in line with recommendations from the Council under the excessive deficit procedure. The recommendations adopted by the ECOFIN Council in December 2009 provide a co-ordinated path towards sustainable public finances. They utilise the flexibility provided for under the stability of growth pact, while rightly taking national circumstances into account.
	These have been testing times, and people all around the world have been affected. All economies have been hit, to a greater or lesser extent, and the actions taken by this Government have helped our economy to start to emerge from the crisis.
	Now is not the time to engage in rash cuts, as the Opposition propose. A judgment has to be made as to when to make the fiscal consolidation that will be needed to ensure that we have sustainable public finances. There will be more to be done, not just now but over the next few years.
	As I have said on previous occasions, that will involve some pretty painful decisions on public spending, but it is right that the Government face those decisions. The PBR sets out actions to secure the recovery and build our future, and also to ensure that we have the means to do so by delivering controlled public finances.
	That is the programme set out in the 2009 PBR. With the approval of the House, it is the basis on which we will send updated information to the European Commission. I look forward to the contributions that hon. Members will make to this debate, and I commend the motion to the House.

David Gauke: I beg to move amendment (a), at end add:
	'but regrets that the assessment does not demonstrate that the Government has a credible plan to deal with the United Kingdom's deficit.'.
	As the Minister said, the report that we are debating is published in accordance with our obligations under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 to inform the European Commission of our economic and budgetary position. I want to begin by making a point that appears to be traditional at the commencement of these debates-that the Government have been reluctant to publish the report and make it available to hon. Members.
	The report should have been published before the end of December, but in fact was published only on 28 January. However, it is written as though it had been published last year, referring as it does to the VAT reduction that will expire on 31 December 2009. I hope that the Minister will explain why there was a delay, and why that detail was not picked up.
	It was also very difficult to locate the report. I obtained a copy last week, but it was not available in the Vote Office yesterday. This is a point that has been made many times before: my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) made it in the equivalent debate last year, and I did so the year before. It may not be entirely surprising that the Government do not want to make the report widely available, given the state of the public finances, but it is a pity and I hope that the problem will be rectified in future,
	Before I turn to the contents of the Treasury's report and the state of the UK's finances, I want to touch briefly on the issue of Greece, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) earlier this afternoon. It was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) in the course of Prime Minister's questions.
	This report is part of the multilateral surveillance procedure under articles 121 and 126 of the European Union treaty. One suspects that multilateral surveillance is somewhat to the fore in the Treasury's mind at the moment.
	The Government will be aware of the widespread speculation about the fiscal situation of some members of the eurozone, and of Greece in particular. Will the Minister tell the House what the Government's opinion is about providing external assistance for Greece, if that becomes necessary? Does he consider that to be a matter for eurozone countries alone, or is it an international matter for members of the IMF and the G20? Does he think that there is any role for the EU as a whole, including non-eurozone members? If UK taxpayers are to be involved in any way in bailing out another country, will he give an undertaking that this House will be kept informed?

William Cash: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a brand new Commission for the whole of the EU has been established today. Does he have any information about whether the requirements under the section of the Act that we are debating have been referred to the previous Commission, or the present one?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not in a position to answer him, but perhaps the Minister will have an opportunity to do so later.
	I turn now to the British situation, as set out in the report. We are in a very difficult position as a country. In its recent Green Budget document, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
	The recent performance of the UK economy has been rather alarming.
	The UK has suffered the largest fall in activity, relative to its pre-crisis trend, of any G7 economy. It is the slowest of the G20 economies to emerge from recession, and it is borrowing more than at any time in our peacetime history. We are borrowing more than any major economy. Our credit rating is under threat. In those circumstances, the credibility of the plans to get us out of this mess is crucial.
	It is worth examining the comments made by those who have held positions of responsibility during the Government's term of office and their views on the credibility of the Government's position. Howard Davies, the former head of the Financial Services Authority, stated:
	The major risk is the loss of confidence in the government's ability to get the public finances back under control.
	Sir John Gieve, appointed as deputy governor of the Bank of England, stated that the Government's plan
	will be hard to sustain politically and eliminating the structural deficit more quickly in 2011 and 2012 looks a better course.
	Richard Lambert, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee, now director general of the CBI, stated:
	History tells us that these are really difficult nettles to grasp but if you grasp them in a clear and bold way, then the pain lasts for a shorter period than if you just limply grab hold of them... Our strong instincts are that the risks of going too soon are less than the risks of waiting too long... Two full parliaments of chancellors being responsible just seems too much to expect.
	On the fiscal plan set out in the pre-Budget report, Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, told the Treasury Committee that
	the longer there is not a credible plan that sets out what actions will be taken the more
	a downgrade to the credit rating
	is a risk. I do not believe there is any impediment to the UK putting in place a credible plan which will convince financial markets.
	I think it would be fair to interpret those remarks as suggesting that no credible plan was in place. To confirm that impression, on 19 January the Governor of the Bank of England stated in a speech in Exeter that the spring Budget provides an opportunity to
	demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term,
	again suggesting that that commitment had not previously been demonstrated.
	Sir Steve Robson, former second permanent secretary to the Treasury under the present Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said of the pre-Budget report:
	I saw three tests. First, did it enhance immediate prospects for economic recovery-which is mainly about the availability of credit to business. Second, did it set out a credible path to fiscal and monetary balance. Third, did it enhance the economy's long term growth prospects. It did a little on the first and was a bad miss on the second and third.
	Sir Steve Robson went on to state:
	If the Government lacks credibility on fiscal matters, there can be severe consequences-as Greece has just found out.
	We have heard warnings about the credit rating agencies from the likes of the Governor of the Bank of England and former senior civil servants. Today Brian Coulton, head of sovereign rating at Fitch, stated:
	The UK, among the triple As is one of the most vulnerable, with Spain and France.
	Fitch has previously warned of the need for an aggressive programme of fiscal tightening after the election.
	Standard and Poor's has already downgraded the outlook for Britain's credit rating from stable to negative. I could list a number of economists, all of whom express their concern about the credibility of the UK's fiscal position. Bill Gross, managing director of the leading bond investor Pimco rather alarmingly stated:
	The UK is a must to avoid. Its gilts are resting on a bed of nitroglycerine. High debt with the potential to devalue its currency present high risks to bond investors.
	If our credibility is at risk, as it clearly is, we will have to pay more for our debt, and interest rates will rise unless something is done to address the issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the shadow Chancellor, has stated that the first benchmark on which we, the Conservatives, would ask to be judged if we are in power in the next Parliament, is maintaining our triple A credit rating. Is the Minister prepared to be judged on that criterion as well? Perhaps he will tell us in his remarks later.
	With all the resources at their disposal, the Government have obfuscated on setting out any spending details. There is no comprehensive spending review. It has been kicked into the long grass. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates cuts of up to 24 per cent. in some Departments, but the Government refuse to give us any numbers. The Minister is partially exempt from some of these criticisms. He said today that some of the cuts will be pretty painful. He has previously said that they would be extremely painful.
	The Government have done everything they could to prevent the numbers being available. In the report that some of us have before us, we see a further example of that. Last year, in the equivalent report, Government interest paid as a percentage of GDP was set out for all the years up to 2013-14. This year-I thank my noble Friend Baroness Noakes for highlighting this-one would expect interest percentage to be provided for an additional year. Instead we have the figures only up till 2010-11. When the point was raised in the equivalent debate in the other place last week, Lord Myners responded that
	the Treasury does not publish an AME-
	that is, annual managed expenditure-
	forecast beyond the current spending review period, given the uncertainty and volatility inherent in forecasting this far ahead.-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2010; Vol. 717, c. 406.]
	Why there is more volatility and uncertainty this year than last year is not entirely clear.
	The Treasury Committee, a Labour-dominated Committee, said:
	There is a sense that the Treasury are using uncertainty to suit themselves.
	Such a lack of openness and candour does nothing for the credibility of the Government or for the public finances of this country.
	The Government's case, as we heard today, is essentially that unemployment is not as high as expected and that repossessions are not as high as expected. It is worth highlighting the remarks of the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, which stated that after the last recession in the early 1990s, the peak of corporate liquidations occurred five quarters after the return of growth, and the peak of personal insolvencies was 18 months after the return of growth. In the recession in the early 1980s, the lag was even greater, so let us hope that we are not going to see a high number of insolvencies and liquidations, but the historic precedents suggest that the worst is still to come.

Alistair Burt: Does my hon. Friend not think it is the most curious defence from a Labour Government facing the figures of unemployment and bankruptcies that we have, simply to say, Oh well, it's not as bad as it might be. The bruising might be tough, but it could have been so much worse? There has been a 118 per cent. increase in unemployment in my constituency since 1997, the 15th worst in the United Kingdom. My constituents do not take kindly to being told, We've handled your affairs badly, but it could have been so much worse.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. We should remember that all Labour Governments leave unemployment higher than they inherited, and they therefore judge themselves by those standards. Even by those standards, the situation is pretty appalling. There was a moment of consensus about the importance of a flexible labour market. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) was right. The reason why unemployment has not gone up as much as it might have done is that more people are working part-time, which partly compensates for the smaller number of people working full-time. The number of people in full-time employment has gone down by about 600,000; the number of people in part-time work has gone up by 280,000. That is welcome flexibility. I am glad that the Minister welcomed it, but I am not sure that the trade unions that fund the Labour party do.
	On the long-term trend, the Institute for Fiscal Studies' Green Budget made the point that
	the non-accelerating wage rate of unemployment (or 'natural' rate of unemployment) is set to rise markedly-perhaps by 3 percentage points, to around the 9 per cent. mark at end-2015.
	Interestingly, the IFS went on to state:
	A government that tightens fiscal policy aggressively, and relies more upon spending cuts than tax hikes to do so, is likely to experience a lower rise in the NAWRU-
	the non-accelerating wage rate of unemployment-
	other things being equal.
	Let us look at the growth projections on which the Government rely for their public finance projections. Generally, the IFS says that the UK is poorly placed; specifically, the Green Budget states:
	Most likely it will therefore suffer a further, and marked, deterioration in its productive capacity, and one that leaves the total decline in potential GDP greater than the 5 per cent. that the Treasury has assumed when making its projections.
	The IFS has a central estimate of a 7.5 per cent. fall in productive capacity. It goes on to state:
	More worryingly still, the growth rate of potential GDP will probably also be significantly reduced. Rather than the 2.75 per cent. per annum that the Pre-Budget Report suggests as a central estimate, it is more likely that potential GDP growth will run at something close to 1.75 per cent. per annum.
	That has a significant knock-on effect on the credibility of the public finance projections.
	In support of the IFS view, which is broadly consistent with that of the OECD, we have the McKinsey report Debt and Deleveraging: the global credit bubble and its economic consequences. It states that slow economic growth is the inevitable consequence of high relative indebtedness, and in that context it is interesting to examine McKinsey's calculations. It added up the debts of households, companies and Government and financial institutions and compared them with GDP. It found that the UK debt ratio was 466 per cent. That is slightly lower than Japan's 471 per cent., but they are far and away the two biggest ratios among the major economies. Even if one strips out the banks, and to be fair there is an argument for doing so, one is left with the UK as the second most indebted major economy.
	On projections, the IFS is more optimistic than the Government about the borrowing number for 2009-10. It thinks that £178 billion may be overly pessimistic, but that is the end of the good news. It anticipates weaker growth than the Treasury in tax revenues for a given economic outlook, and it sets out Barclays bank's growth forecasts. Even under Barclays' central scenario, the fiscal forecast suggests that borrowing will persist at a higher level than the Treasury forecast.
	Given the crisis in the public finances, what do we have from the Government? Their fiscal consolidation has been deferred until long after the general election, and there are no specific details about departmental spending. In fact, the Government have been downright evasive. There is no consistent willingness to level with the British people about what will be necessary; and, as for institutional change in order to enhance the UK's credibility, rather than create the widely welcomed office for budget responsibility, they have introduced the universally derided Fiscal Responsibility Bill.
	The Opposition are optimists: we believe that this country can do better and can address the long-term challenges. But the fact is that we must be realistic about our situation. The Prime Minister promised an end to boom and bust; he has given us the worst bust since the depression. He said that Britain was best placed to withstand the recession; he has given us the worst recession of any country in the G7 and the longest of any in the G20. The Government promised us sustainable public finances; we have the worst budget deficit in our history, and our credit rating is under threat.
	We have a boom built on debt-a burden that will hold back growth and drive up unemployment if we do not do something about it. The Government will not accept their responsibility for the disastrous state of the public finances, and they are not fit to accept responsibility for our public finances after the general election. The pre-Budget report reveals a Government who have a legacy of failure and no plan for the future. This country can afford this Government no longer. It is time for a change.

Jeremy Browne: I shall seek to be reasonably brief, because others wish to contribute to our deliberations and our time is limited.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), the Conservative spokesman, concluded his speech by summarising the Government's position, and summarising it well. The Prime Minister appeared to make his reputation on the basis that he was an iron Chancellor who had golden rules in place to prevent our total national debt from rising above 40 per cent. of GDP; and on the basis that he had, uniquely in the history of capitalism and human endeavour, abolished the cycle of boom and bust. Now in these debates we find that none of that was true at all. Indeed, the very basis on which the Labour party decided unanimously to make the right hon. Gentleman the leader of their party and the Prime Minister has been undermined absolutely, and his credentials are mere dust.
	If we compare today's economy with the boasts that the right hon. Gentleman made as Chancellor and as Prime Minister, we find that in 2009 Britain's GDP fell by almost 5 per cent., our biggest fall in a single calendar year in peacetime since 1921, and that our national debt is increasing by £500 million every single day. The ready reckoner has always been that a deficit of more than 10 per cent. of GDP puts a country in dangerous territory; we will have a deficit of more than 12 per cent., not only this year, but next year. Throughout this period, Government forecasts have been hopelessly wrong, but in debates with me and others the Chancellor keeps denying that.
	Let me remind the House that in the 2008 Budget, less than two years ago, the Government forecast that the deficit for this year, 2009-10, would be £38 billion; instead, it is £178 billion. The Government's forecast was wrong by exactly £140 billion. The figure is even worse for 2010-11: less than two years ago the Government forecast a £32 billion deficit; now they forecast a deficit of £176 billion.
	As the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, our recession compares very badly to those of other countries in the G7 and the G20. Even now, when we are out of recession, the anaemic growth figure, as the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) put it, of 0.1 per cent. means that there remains the genuine possibility that we may not be out of the woods. The economy may yet re-enter recession. I hope that it will not, and on the balance of probability I suspect that it will not, but the risk nevertheless remains real.
	We have a Chancellor and a Prime Minister in a state of complete denial. We had, shortly before Christmas, the absurd spectacle of the Chancellor, in his pre-Budget report, coming before us to tell us of all the tough measures that he was taking in order to get to grips with the deficit, and then announcing additional spending programmes that exceeded in value the amount of money that he was saving through the austerity measures that he was bringing before us. We had the Prime Minister, in his speech to the Labour party conference, coming up with a shopping list of new spending commitments as if none of this were happening-as if the good times were rolling on and on, the golden rule was being adhered to, and we were still repaying debt. He came up with this proposal here and that proposal there-presumably all designed to try to make the Labour party's appeal greater at the general election, but based on absolutely nothing. There was no credibility and no funding available for any of those proposals.
	Now, finally, we have the utterly preposterous Fiscal Responsibility Bill, which represents a desire by the Government to say that if they wish something to happen, it will happen by magic. They do not have the measures in place to bring about the 50 per cent. cut in the deficit over the lifetime of the next Parliament to which they say that they are committed. They cannot credibly show how they will achieve that objective.
	It is a very sorry situation that the Government find themselves in. I therefore looked at the Conservative amendment with keener interest than I might have done in other circumstances, trying to find a credible alternative to what is clearly an incredible Government. I note that the Conservative shadow Chancellor has wisely left his name off the amendment, which calls for a credible plan, presumably on the basis that associating himself with something that was credible would lead to a lot of scorn in this House. It has been a truly dreadful week and a bit for the credibility of the shadow Chancellor and for some of his team, although I suspect that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has done his best behind the scenes to try to keep his party on track. Last week, the shadow Chancellor set out his eight benchmarks, saying at the British Museum, This is my plan for Britain. I will not read out lots of quotes, but this is directly relevant to whether we should take the Conservative amendment seriously.  City AM said of the shadow Chancellor's proposals:
	The report is a damp squib. A few of the proposals are great; most are fluffy; some are downright bad; none are new.
	Andrew Alexander said in the  Daily Mail, a paper very sympathetic to the Conservative party:
	At one moment, the Opposition says it will be swift in making cuts; at another, that it will make them in due course.
	Jonathan Freedland said in  The Guardian:
	The problem for Cameron is that his wobbling is not confined to the economy. There's a pattern here.
	He goes on to cite other examples of where the Conservatives are wobbling in terms of policy and of credibility.
	It is difficult for the Conservatives to argue that they have a credible plan to deal with the United Kingdom's deficit. According to the Government's figures, in 2010-11, Britain is projected to have a deficit of £176 billion, yet to deal with that deficit the Conservatives have offered in their last round of measures £1 billion-worth of examples. In other words, a deficit that the Government clock up over a single weekend is the amount by which the Conservatives may reduce the deficit over the course of an entire year through finding a few examples of reductions.
	The shadow Chancellor told us that this was the new age of austerity and that anybody who did not believe that tough measures were necessary right now was not telling the British public the truth. Then, only a few weeks and months later, we find out that that is no longer his analysis at all-that in fact the Conservatives do not have any meaningful proposals to reduce the deficit and are not even sure whether that is something to which they wish to turn their attention in the immediate future. No wonder there is widespread anxiety about the suitability of the shadow Chancellor and his party to assume the responsibilities of government.
	Where does that leave us? The situation in this country is very serious. The Conservative spokesman and others are right to warn that our deficit is not sustainable in anything like the medium to longer terms. We cannot go on living so much beyond our means that we are having to fund through borrowing something in the region of a fifth to a quarter of all public spending. That is why my party and I have put forward a series of proposals that, as I readily accept, do not go as far as we would need to go in order to deal with this problem in its entirety, but go a lot further than any other party has been willing to go in putting forward concrete proposals to get to grips with the truly dreadful deficit that the Government have left this country. The Conservatives have acquiesced in keeping that debate and the full consequences from the public.
	At the same time, we readily acknowledge that one does not switch off the life support machine until one is certain that the patient is dead. The patient that is the British economy is in an extremely sickly state at the moment. It is still not at all certain, until we see the growth figures for the first quarter of 2010, that the patient is functioning in anything like the healthy state that we would wish it to. On that basis, there is a reasonable economic consensus that it would be a mistake to cut too quickly. There is a danger of cutting too fast, as well as a danger of cutting too slowly. I am afraid that the Conservatives, by trying to ride both those horses at once, no longer have a credible alternative plan in place; and the Government's credibility has disappeared altogether. We will need a tough, disciplined, intelligent approach to trying to get our deficit under control once we have tried to get the economy back into growth and on a stable footing again.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to hear a short reply by the Minister, there is limited time for those who wish to contribute from the Back Benches. I hope that there will be a certain amount of co-operation between those hon. Members.

William Cash: The issue before us goes rather deeper than the pre-Budget statement and the report, and, if I dare say so, rather beyond even the very sensible amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friends. I say that because the origin of section 5 has to be observed if we are to know exactly what we are talking about in terms of the British economy in the context of the European Union.
	On 4 May 1993, a Labour amendment was moved and then accepted by the then Government, basically in order to do a deal over the Maastricht treaty. The right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who was leading for the then Opposition, said that the object of the amendment was, first, to make clear the priority that the Opposition believed should attach to article 2 of the Maastricht treaty in setting the goals of the Community in general; secondly, to deal with the question of the assessment of criteria, particularly convergence; and thirdly, to deal with the question of accountability. It is important to look at what article 2 says, because that goes to the very heart of the crisis that is going on in Greece and the whole practicality of the European Union. It prescribes as follows:
	The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies...to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.
	That is what article 2 states, and of course it is now in the Lisbon treaty, which consolidated all the existing treaties.
	The Maastricht rebels, for whom I had the honour of leading many of the debates, took a strong position and refused to support the arrangements in question. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), no less, the current Secretary of State for Wales, made a powerful speech in which he condemned the wishful thinking of the arrangements, and went on to vote against the Maastricht treaty on Third Reading. He was joined by a number of Labour Members, but not enough.
	This is not just about history, it is about the present. Based on our predictions, all the Maastricht rebels, including my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is sitting next to me today, declined to vote for the proposal on the grounds of the impracticability of what was contained in article 2. Now, as is becoming increasingly obvious in this context and many others, the European Union simply is not working. I refer to what section 5 of the 1993 Act actually states, which is:
	Before submitting the information required in implementing
	the provisions of the treaty that I have just mentioned,
	Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Article 2.
	It states that the report will be submitted to the European Council and European Commission in pursuit of their responsibilities under various articles.
	Over an extended period, particularly in relation to the Fiscal Responsibility Bill-I referred to it as the fiscal irresponsibility Bill-those of us on the Conservative Benches have made one attack after another not only on the United Kingdom's performance, as set out in the pre-Budget report, but on the performance of the eurozone countries in complying with those provisions. I spoke about that only last week in the debate about financial management in the European Committee. We have also made the point, as I did earlier, about the absurdity of the no-growth, no-stability, no-pact arrangements in the so-called stability and growth pact, which was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in those heady days.
	We are caught up in the failure of the European Community and European Union on their economic policies, which are simply not realistic. We need only examine article 2 to realise how much wishful thinking lies behind it. It does not work, because of the failure of the Lisbon agenda, because of over-regulation and because of the degree to which the report of the European Court of Auditors does not stack up, as I mentioned in Committee the other day. I do not have to repeat all that, because it is already on the record.
	With regard to fiscal stability, the Government have failed woefully. I have said before that they have lied on the question of the actual debt, and that is why Standard  Poor's, PIMCO and other organisations that have great control and influence over both credit ratings and the bond market are looking so nervously at the underlying weakness of the British economy. The plain fact is that we are in serious difficulties and the Government are doing nothing about it. That is part and parcel of the problem that comes from attempting to subscribe to principles laid down in the Maastricht treaty, as endorsed by the Lisbon treaty, that simply do not work.
	I have not advocated the idea of outright withdrawal, just like that. However, what is going on in the eurozone at the moment, as evidenced by a number of important articles that have been written over the past few days, has demonstrated the seriousness of the situation. It is simply astonishing that here we are in a virtually empty House, with nobody at all on the Labour Back Benches other than the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, when the eurozone is in deep trouble and may even be beyond crisis and when an economic summit meeting to deal with the matter is proposed for Thursday.
	Wolfgang Münchau stated in the  Financial Times in an article written on Monday 8 February that
	advocates of an IMF-led bail-out conveniently ignore the disastrous signal that this would send to the financial markets about where the eurozone is heading in the future.
	I strongly recommend that anybody who reads these debates should also read that article. It continued:
	It would be so much better if the eurozone were to sort out its own problems.
	That was certainly not what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions today.
	There is deep concern that the International Monetary Fund may be called in to sort out the problem, but equally France and Germany might do so. As I have said repeatedly, it will be yet another prescription for danger in the EU if some counties, including ourselves as a net a contributor, are called upon to bail out others. It will not just be Greece, because as we have seen reported in the newspapers regarding Spain, the next step will be the same as on 16 September 1992. Those of us who had campaigned against the compulsory exchange rate mechanism were proved right when the ERM collapsed, to the serious detriment of the people of this country, including my constituents. Wolfgang Münchau stated that these last few days of February
	have reminded me of the speculative attacks on sterling and the Italian lira in September 1992.
	He based his whole article on that analogy, and he is right, because it will not just be Greece. Whether or not Greece is bailed out, there will then be Spain, and then Italy, Ireland and Portugal, not even mentioning countries such as Romania and Bulgaria that are outside the eurozone for the time being and should never have been brought into the EU by accession. As everybody outside this place knows, we have a serious crisis for the eurozone as a whole. I do not say that with any great satisfaction or gloating, but I wish people had listened to us back in 1993.
	Apart from voting against the mad arrangement that is now creating all the problems, in 1993 I said that we needed to ensure that we did not return to the dark forces of the past, with massive unemployment and the consequences of a failed economic system. That is what we predicted would happen, and we said that it would lead to the rise of the far right. That is exactly what I said in an article that I wrote in 1993, and I stand by it, because next to my constituency in Staffordshire the British National party is beginning to emerge.
	There is a particular problem in Germany, because there is still an unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent. in the eastern part. The unity of the Deutschmark and now the euro has not solved the problems of eastern Germany. If the Germans are asked to bail out Greece-that is basically what is happening, because the French are just bystanders in this, and it is just a bit of political fixing-do we seriously believe that Angela Merkel and the German Government, not to mention the German people as a whole, will accept the prospect of bailing out all those other countries as well? That is what is in prospect.

Jeremy Browne: I am genuinely curious as to what solution the hon. Gentleman would suggest for Greece's problems if it was not a member of the European Union or the eurozone. Alternatively, for the sake of an illustrative debate, how would Greece address its severe budgetary problems if the EU did not exist at all?

William Cash: That is a good point, and it applies, as things stand, to the UK. It is precisely because those of us who campaigned against going into the euro won the battle in the Maastricht debates-that was at huge political cost, but necessary in our vital national interest-that we are out of the euro. The Prime Minister has no credit for that whatever. He just kept the debate going because he knew we were right-that is all there is to it. The plain fact is that we were right. Regrettably, we had to fight a Conservative Government over a long period on that issue. If Greece were not in the eurozone, it too could do what the UK can do, which is keep afloat even though that means devaluation-we must recognise that there is an international financial crisis, but it is being made much worse.
	In  City  AM today, Allister Heath, who at one time was the chairman and research director of the European Foundation, which I founded in 1993, says:
	Bailing out Greece is not the answer.
	There is another exceptionally good article in that paper as well. The plain fact is that the analysis in the City is clear. There is deep worry, and every reason why people should be worried.
	In an article in today's  Financial Times, Martin Wolf says that Germans must start buying to save Europe's stragglers. At the end of it, he says that that
	requires improved competitiveness and buoyant external demand
	but that
	At present, none of this is available.
	The point is that in his proposals on the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has made it clear that his imperative is to increase British competitiveness, and it is absolutely essential that we do so. We need to get rid of unnecessary over-regulation, most of which comes from the EU. We must follow up those proposals, but how will we do it?
	That is where there is a serious and important decision to be taken. The decision hinges on my gold-standard-if I may dare to call it that-United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill, which has been debated in the House and which is strongly supported by a significant number of Conservative Members. My right hon. Friend has accepted it in principle, because he has stated that there will be a sovereignty Bill.
	What is the relevance of that Bill to this debate? There are economic crises in the Europe and the UK, and we cannot separate the European issue from economic questions. The two things are absolutely interwoven on reacquiring growth and competitiveness, as my right hon. Friend said, and on the applications of the stability and growth pact and the Maastricht criteria, to which I have referred.
	Rather than take issue with Conservative Front Benchers on that subject, I will simply say that it would be a great mistake to attempt to deal only with the economy in our manifesto going into the general election. We must deal with the European dimension at the same time. Therefore, we should deal with both the European issue-in spades-as well as the economic issue, because they are interdependent. To achieve that, we must repatriate powers to the UK Parliament, Government and people to ensure that we have a working, stable democracy that achieves for the UK the objectives of stability and competitiveness, to enable us to secure jobs and move forward.
	On that basis, my Bill would provide the template to enable us to repatriate powers where there is any conflict between the requirements set out in the old Maastricht treaty and now in the Lisbon treaty, or the requirement for competitiveness-there is a stack of stuff that I will not now go into to deal with that. When it comes to repatriation of powers, we must be in a position to require the judiciary to take note of, follow and obey the Westminster legislation that is needed to override the European legislation. That is the solid template. That is what it is all about.

Jeremy Browne: When the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) warned members of his party to stop banging on about Europe, did that put any doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) regarding his commitment to the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill that he introduced to the House?

William Cash: Absolutely none whatever. I was asked that question several months ago, and I said that I would make no apology for so-called banging on about Europe, because I am realist. The Bill is exactly what we need to get the European issue and the economic questions running together. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has on three separate occasions supported that Bill by providing Tellers for my proposals on the supremacy of Parliament. We are running together on the Bill. It is just a question of how clear and categorical that measure is.
	This is a crucial debate, because it is about the future of the British economy and achieving an association of nation states. Everybody needs to wake up and understand that.

Andrew Tyrie: That was as usual an extremely interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)-apart from the fact that I have heard it before and so have had time to think about it. I agree with three quarters of it, and there are just a few slivers that keep jutting in that I find difficult to go along with in full. Rather than answer my hon. Friend's speech, I will have a go at making my own in the time remaining.
	We are debating fiscal fig leaves today-the European fiscal fig leaf is called the growth and stability pact; and our own is called the fiscal rules which, of course, lie in a heap of rubble. The stability and growth pact was a sop to the Germans, who wanted some protection against exactly what has now happened, which is Greece behaving highly irresponsibly. The Germans got nothing more substantive than the pact. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister clearly wanted a fiscal fig leaf to convince the markets that there was something substantial to buttress his idea that he was able to abolish boom and bust. We know what happened to that.
	I was going to say a few words about how much worse or better off we would have been in the eurozone, but I dare not, given present company, so I will move on swiftly. We are none the less subject to what is known as the excessive deficit procedure. That is what we are debating today. Under the procedure, we are required to deliver an explanation to the Council, and we have that 112-page document today, although it was difficult to get hold of. I got a copy from the Library this morning and it is just a cut and paste job of the pre-Budget report, which is why some of the phraseology reads like something that was published some time ago.
	Like the PBR, the document is a fitting product from a fag-end Government at the end of their parliamentary term. The main elements of the document-and the PBR-are a forecast that carries very little credibility, a plan to deal with the fiscal crisis, which nobody believes, and proposals for a Fiscal Responsibility Act to replace the shattered fiscal rules. That Act is now on the statute book and was so absurd that not a single Labour Member outside the Government was prepared to speak in its defence. What we should have had was, first, a forecast with some independent verification and, therefore, some credibility. Secondly, we should have had a plan to close the deficit supported by credible numbers on public spending cuts. Thirdly, we needed something along the lines of an office for fiscal responsibility to support the credibility of the Government's fiscal policy in the longer term. Those three measures would have given some substance to our submission to the Council on how we would remedy the fiscal crisis under the excessive deficit procedure.
	The UK agreed in December 2009, at a meeting of the Council, to a deadline of 2014-15 to correct our non-compliance under the rules. Of course, that deadline will have to be completely ignored. If the Government were to be re-elected, compliance would rely entirely on the PBR which is, as we know, virtually content-free. The condemnation of the PBR was so severe that I cannot remember anything like it. I shall not rehearse all the quotations now, but anything produced by Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Citigroup and a host of others will confirm my point.
	Does it matter that we are living in this Alice in Wonderland world of fiscal policy, and how does it affect our constituents? The first respect in which it matters is a highly political one. Make-believe documents-for that is what we have before us-give the impression of a more benign medium-term environment than actually exists. Unless we tell the electorate the truth about the public finances, the next election will take place on the basis of a false prospectus, and that erodes the credibility of politicians, politics and this institution. It eats away at the moral authority of any Government trying to deal with the crisis, just as the false prospectus on Iraq did at the time of that crisis. In the end, the whole nation suffers as trust in Government atrophies. Unless we are careful, that is what awaits us on economic policy. That is where we were in the dark days of the 1970s, for those of us who can remember them, and it is important that we never let that happen again.
	A second respect in which it matters that this document lacks real substance is that the vacuity of the PBR costs money, including higher public spending. To the extent that markets lose confidence in Government plans, the cost of Government borrowing rises, and we all pay for that. That is why it is worth considering the effects of the Government's fiscal plans from the perspective of the bond markets.
	It has been extraordinary to hear Ministers congratulating themselves on the stability of the gilt market. They have done that during the past two debates, but we cannot let them get away with it. It is true that they are issuing huge amounts of gilts and the funding gap is truly horrendous, as the Governor of the Bank of England has said. As far as I know, it is unprecedented in peacetime. However, at the moment it is being plugged by quantitative easing. The UK Debt Management Office sells the stuff in Eastcheap and, on the Chancellor's instructions, the Bank of England buys it straight back the next day in Threadneedle street. That is a few hundred yards away and a safe round trip, so it is no wonder that we do not have a funding crisis and the gilt market is stable. Of course, eventually we will have to bring this Alice in Wonderland world to an end; quantitative easing will have to end, as no country can live on funny money for ever.
	I have not heard the following point made before in the House, so I should say that the real test will be posed not only by the fact that QE will be brought to an end, but by the fact that the accumulated stock of what we have bought in under QE will have to be funded and eventually offloaded back into the markets, and that will also cost a huge sum. I was going to discuss some estimates of that cost, but I do not have time to do so now. However, I can assure hon. Members that even only modest increases in the long-run yield generate large numbers, which will result in lower public spending or higher taxes in the long run.
	Withdrawing from QE and handling the consequences of QE in the long run will require very careful management, otherwise the gilt markets simply will not be able to absorb what is being offloaded. These twin issues of the funding of the deficit and the servicing of the debt will become the most salient in British politics in the next few years, just as the balance of payments was in the fixed exchange rate era of the '60s and early '70s. This will require a level of competence from the governing party that has been entirely absent in recent months. After all, it was not even able to organise a leadership coup after three attempts; one would hope to have one's ducks in a row on the third go. Everybody knows that this country needs another Prime Minister, but the Labour party seems unable to organise even that.
	The bond market problem will be the same one that is confronting Greece-my hon. Friend the Member for Stone alluded to that a moment ago. Greece is struggling and it is making the same submission that we are making to the Council-the Greeks are also scribbling away trying to explain how they are going to comply with the stability and growth pact. The markets will be making their minds up about Greece too. The last time I looked at this, which was a week or so ago, I found that the long-yield premium on Greek bonds had already widened to 300 basis points. The risk for Greece is that that widens to such a point that the markets say, We don't believe you'd ever pay it back. At that point, the country would go bust.
	The Prime Minister told us what would happen in such circumstances at the Dispatch Box during Prime Minister's questions: either the eurozone would have a whip-round and bail the country out-that would be led by the Germans, who are the very people who wanted to avoid all this and who pressed so hard for something tighter and more vigorous than the stability and growth pact-or the International Monetary Fund would have to do the heavy lifting and bail Greece out.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Tyrie: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will not, because I wish to conclude my remarks so as to give the Minister a moment or two to respond.
	There will be many implications for inflation in the long run as a result of what has been occurring-that, too, has not been mentioned today. When more normal credit conditions in the financial sector return, as they will, and when the relatively benign international inflationary outlook deteriorates, as it might eventually, it is inevitable that the scale of the debt overhang will have at least some consequences for inflation. Therefore, whatever the state of the economy, in the long run interest rates will have to be higher than they otherwise would be, given that there is all this borrowing to service. I worry that that will become a medium-term problem for us too.
	The plain fact is that right at the heart of the Government's failure was the cancellation of the spending review in the pre-Budget report and the abandonment of the fiscal rules, which destroyed the credibility of the Government's overall economic framework. I do not think that they can put that back together and I do not think that anybody would believe them even if they had got the right policies in place. Only a change in Government can now restore the credibility of economic policy in Britain.

Ian Pearson: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the debate.
	First, I want to address the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) when he said that the report was late and copies were not available. This year, the Commission's deadline for the report was later than it was last year, which is one of the reasons why it was produced in January rather than December. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said, the report is pretty much a cut and paste job, and he is right that it has been the practice of the UK Government to produce reports under section 5 based on pre-Budget reports. That is what this document is. I would also say to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire that we laid a written ministerial statement at the time of publication, wrote letters to the Opposition to make them aware of its existence and said that it would form the basis of the section 5 debate. I cannot therefore see why he should have had any problem in getting hold of the document.
	As is always the case when we discuss these issues, we have had a very interesting debate. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that we should not separate the UK economy from the European economy when it comes to deciding policy, which is probably the only thing on which I agree with him. The UK economy is closely interwoven with that of Europe, and it is in the UK's strategic interests that we continue to be a full and active member of the European Union and take advantage of the fact that there are 500 million consumers in the European marketplace. It is vital that we recognise that huge numbers of jobs are reliant on our relationship with the EU-figures that I have seen suggest that about 3.5 million are directly related to EU membership.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Ian Pearson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a maximum of three minutes left, and rather than reopen the debate, I would like to reply to it.
	It is my understanding that the Governor of the Bank of England said only today that he could not think of any reason why the UK should lose its credit rating, and he pointed out that the UK has a very good track record. Furthermore, according to the International Monetary Fund's most recent forecast, the UK's gross debt in 2010, as a percentage of gross domestic product, will be lower than that of France and Germany, certainly much lower than that of Italy and Japan, lower than that of the United States and, indeed, the G7 average, and lower than that of every G7 country except Canada.
	I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, but I did not hear a single word about what, if anything, the Conservative party would do were it in power. That might count as a result for him, however, given what the shadow Chancellor and some of his other shadow Treasury colleagues have said in recent weeks and then immediately had to recant. The Conservative party seems to be in a state of complete policy paralysis, which might not be bad for him, because at least he has been able to defend that position today.
	The hon. Member for Chichester was completely wrong when he suggested that the PBR is a make-believe document-that is a travesty of all the hard work done by many civil servants to produce it. He will be aware that its growth forecasts for 2010 are now at the lower end of the consensus range-
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 179, Noes 227.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 189.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2009 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010
	Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010.

House of Commons Disqualification  Act 1975

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:-
	PART 1 OF SCHEDULE 1 (JUDICIAL OFFICES)
	1. The following entry is inserted at the appropriate place:-
	District judge (magistrates' courts), or deputy district judge (magistrates' courts), in Northern Ireland.
	2. The following entry is omitted:-
	Resident Magistrate or Deputy Resident Magistrate appointed under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.
	3. In the entry beginning 'Sheriff Principal or Sheriff', for 'Temporary Sheriff' (in the second place those words appear) there is substituted 'part-time sheriff'.
	4. In the entry beginning 'Chief or other Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland', for the words from '(excluding' to '1991)' there is substituted 'or deputy Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland'.
	5. In the entry beginning 'Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland', for '(not including a deputy Commissioner)' there is substituted 'or deputy Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland'.
	PART 2 OF SCHEDULE 1 (BODIES ALL OF WHOSE MEMBERS ARE DISQUALIFIED)
	 Additional entries
	6. The following entries are inserted at the appropriate places-
	The Accounts Commission for Scotland.
	The Advisory Council established under section 3 of the Scottish Qualification Authority Act 2002.
	The Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
	The Arts Council of England.
	The British Transport Police Authority.
	The Care Council for Wales.
	The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland.
	The Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland.
	The English Sports Council.
	The General Social Care Council.
	The Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority in Northern Ireland.
	The Horserace Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal for England and Wales.
	Invest Northern Ireland.
	The NHS Pay Review Body.
	The Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission.
	The Northern Ireland Social Care Council.
	The Office of the Renewable Fuels Agency.
	The Prison Service Pay Review Body.
	The Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration.
	The Risk Management Authority established under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003.
	The School Teachers' Review Body.
	The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council.
	The Scottish Social Services Council.
	The Senior Salaries Review Body.
	The Standards Commission for Scotland.
	The Sustainable Development Commission (an advisory sub-committee of The Sustainable Development Commission Limited).
	The Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
	The United Kingdom Sports Council.
	 Entries repealed
	7. The following entries are omitted-
	The British Board of Agrément.
	The British Steel Corporation.
	The Cable Authority.
	The Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel.
	The Commission for Health Improvement.
	The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.
	The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
	The Crofters Commission.
	The Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board.
	A Development Council established under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947.
	The East of Scotland Water Authority.
	The English Industrial Estates Corporation.
	The Football Licensing Authority.
	The Independent Broadcasting Authority.
	The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland.
	The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and every committee of the Board performing functions of the Board.
	The Local Government Staff Commission (England).
	London Regional Transport.
	A Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal constituted under regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976, regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, or regulation 6 of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.
	The entry relating to a Medical Practices Committee.
	A National Broadcasting Council.
	The North of Scotland Water Authority.
	The Northern Ireland Economic Council.
	The Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board.
	Scottish Homes.
	The Scottish Transport Group.
	The Staff Commission for Wales (Comisiwn Staff Cymru).
	The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board.
	The Wales Centre for Health.
	The West of Scotland Water Authority.
	8. In the entry beginning 'A Joint Planning Inquiry Commission', for '1972' there is substituted '1997'.
	9. For the entry 'A Mental Health Review Tribunal constituted or having effect as if constituted under the Mental Health Act 1983' there is substituted 'The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales'.
	PART 3 OF SCHEDULE 1 (OTHER DISQUALIFYING OFFICES)
	 Additional entries
	10. The following entries are inserted at the appropriate places-
	Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
	Assessor appointed for the purposes of paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003.
	Auditor General for Scotland.
	Chair of the Northern Ireland Library Authority.
	Chair or any member, not also being an employee, of the Patient Client Council established under section 16 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.
	Chair or any member, not also being an employee, of the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being established under section 12 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.
	Chair or any member, not also being an employee, of the Regional Business Services Organisation established under section 14 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.
	Chair or any member, not also being an employee, of the Regional Health and Social Care Board established under section 7 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.
	Chair of the School Food Trust.
	Chair or Chief Executive of the Science and Technology Facilities Council.
	Chair, Deputy Chair or Chief Executive of the Technology Strategy Board.
	Chairman or deputy chairman of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute.
	Chairman, vice-chairman or ordinary member of the BBC Trust.
	Chairman, or director appointed by the Secretary of State, of CDC Group p.l.c. (formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation).
	Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	Chairman of the Crofters Commission.
	Chairman of the Fire and Rescue Service Board.
	Chairman of the Football Licensing Authority.
	Chairman or other member of the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts.
	Chairman of Learning and Teaching Scotland.
	Chairman of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
	Chairman or other non-executive director of an NHS foundation trust.
	Chairman of the Northern Ireland Screen Commission.
	Chairman of a probation trust.
	Chairman of Quality Meat Scotland.
	Chairman of the Scottish Arts Council.
	Chairman or Chief Executive of the Student Loans Company Limited.
	Chairman or Chief Executive of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills or a Director or Commissioner of that Commission appointed by the First Minister in Scotland, the First Minister for Wales or a Northern Ireland Minister.
	Chief Executive of The Sustainable Development Commission Limited or a Director appointed by the members of that company or by the Secretary of State, the First Minister in Scotland, the First Minister for Wales or the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland.
	Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency.
	Chief Investigating Officer appointed under section 9 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.
	Children's Commissioner for Wales.
	Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland.
	Commissioner for Older People in Wales.
	Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
	Convener or member of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care.
	Coroner, deputy coroner or assistant deputy coroner appointed under the Coroners Act 1988.
	Coroner or deputy coroner appointed under section 2(1) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.
	Coroner of the Queen's household.
	Director of BRB (Residuary) Limited.
	Director of Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited.
	Director of David MacBrayne Limited.
	Director in receipt of remuneration of High Speed Two (HS2) Limited.
	Director of Highlands and Islands Airports Limited.
	Director of Middletown Centre for Autism (Holdings) Limited or of Middletown Centre for Autism Limited.
	Director of Northern Ireland Water Limited.
	Director of Partnerships for Schools Limited.
	Director of the Pensions Advisory Service Limited.
	Director of Scottish Futures Trust Limited.
	Director of Service Prosecutions.
	Director of The Skills Development Scotland Co. Limited.
	Director of Strategic Investment Board Limited.
	Director of UK Film Council.
	Director in receipt of remuneration of UK Financial Investments Limited.
	Director of United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited appointed by the members of the company.
	Director General or Deputy Director General of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.
	Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
	Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation for England and Wales.
	The Independent Case Examiner for the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Member of Audit Scotland appointed under section 10(2)(c) of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 or member of the staff of Audit Scotland.
	Member of the staff of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
	Member of the staff of the Commissioner for Older People in Wales.
	Member of the panel of persons available to serve as chairmen of the Care Tribunal in Northern Ireland.
	Member of a panel of persons appointed under Article 7 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to act as members of appeal tribunals.
	Member, not being also a Forestry Commissioner or officer of the Forestry Commissioners, of a committee appointed for England, Scotland or Wales under section 2(3) of the Forestry Act 1967.
	National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards.
	Ordinary member of BBC Audience Council England, BBC Audience Council Northern Ireland, BBC Audience Council Scotland or BBC Audience Council Wales.
	President of the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland.
	President or member of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland.
	President of appeal tribunals appointed under Article 6 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.
	President, or member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairman or other members, of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal for Northern Ireland.
	Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
	Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales.
	A regional returning officer for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998.
	The reviewer appointed under section 40 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007.
	Scottish Information Commissioner.
	Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.
	Scottish Road Works Commissioner.
	Service Complaints Commissioner.
	Trustee of the Independent Living Fund (2006).
	 Entries repealed
	11. The following entries are omitted-
	Adjudicating medical practitioner or specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioner appointed under or by virtue of Part II of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
	Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
	Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board.
	Full-time Chairman of Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
	Chairman or any member, not also being an employee, of a committee constituted under section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
	Chairman of the Consumer Committee for Electricity appointed under Article 7 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.
	Chairman or Chief Executive of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.
	Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the English Sports Council.
	Chairman of Enterprise Ulster.
	Chairman of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland.
	Chairman or any director of the Further Education Development Agency.
	Chairman or any member, not being also an employee, of a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
	Chairman or any member, not being also an employee, of the Health Education Board for Scotland.
	Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Laganside Corporation.
	Chairman of the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland.
	Chairman of the National Research Development Corporation.
	Chairman of the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services.
	Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
	Chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.
	Chairman of the Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland.
	A full-time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
	Chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights constituted under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
	Chairman or any member, not also being an employee, of the State Hospitals Board for Scotland.
	Chairman of the Training, Enterprise and Education Advisory Group for Wales.
	Chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council.
	Chairman of the Wine Standards Board of the Company of the master, wardens and commonalty of Vintners of the City of London.
	Chief Adjudication Officer appointed for Northern Ireland under section 37 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
	Chief Child Support Officer appointed under Article 15(3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
	Chief Scientist of the Scottish Home and Health Department.
	Commissioner appointed under section 67(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
	Director of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited.
	Director of the Commonwealth Development Corporation nominated or appointed by the Secretary of State.
	Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.
	Director General of Gas for Northern Ireland.
	Director General of the National Economic Development Office.
	Governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
	Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland.
	Independent Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner, for the Holding Centres in Northern Ireland.
	Managing director of the National Research Development Corporation.
	Medical Officer for Complaints appointed for Wales by the Secretary of State.
	Member of a panel of chairmen for Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
	Any member of the Education Transfer Council in receipt of remuneration.
	Any member of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales in receipt of remuneration.
	Any member, in receipt of remuneration, of a housing action trust (within the meaning of Part III of the Housing Act 1988).
	Member of the Board of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit in Northern Ireland.
	Member of the Local Enterprise Development Unit.
	Member of a Medical Appeal Tribunal for Northern Ireland appointed under section 48(2) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
	Member of the legal panel of persons available to act as chairmen of Registered Homes Tribunals.
	Member of the legal panel of persons available to act as chairmen of Registered Homes Tribunals in Northern Ireland.
	Any member of the Residuary Body for Wales (Corff Gweddilliol Cymru) in receipt of remuneration.
	Member, in receipt of remuneration, of the School Teachers' Review Body.
	Any member of the Schools Funding Council for Wales in receipt of remuneration.
	Any member of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council in receipt of remuneration.
	Any member of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council in receipt of remuneration.
	Any member of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council in receipt of remuneration.
	Member of the panel of chairmen for Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under section 49(1)(c) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
	Member of a panel of persons appointed under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees.
	Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action.
	Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.
	Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
	President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
	Rent officer or deputy rent officer nominated under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.
	Scottish legal services ombudsman appointed under section 34 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.
	Traffic Director for London.
	The Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland.
	 Entries amended
	12. For the entry 'Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency' there is substituted 'Adjudicator appointed by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs'.
	13. In the entry 'Chairman or Medical Director of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards', for 'Distinction' there is substituted 'Clinical Excellence'.
	14. In the entry 'Chairman of the Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee for Northern Ireland', for 'Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee for Northern Ireland' there is substituted 'Northern Ireland Clinical Excellence Awards Committee'.
	15. For the entry 'Chairman, or member in receipt of remuneration, of the Big Lottery Fund' there is substituted 'Member of the Big Lottery Fund or of a committee established by the Fund under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4A to the National Lottery Act 1993'.
	16. In the entry beginning 'Chairman or non-executive director of a Health and Social Services trust', for 'Social Services trust' there is substituted 'Social Care trust'.
	17. In the entry 'Chairman or any member, not also being an employee, of a Health Board constituted under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978', after 'Health Board' there is inserted 'or a Special Health Board'.
	18. In the entry beginning 'Chairman or non-executive member of a National Health Service trust', for the words from 'the National Health Service (Wales)' to the end substitute 'or the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006'.
	19. In the entry 'Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Sports Council', the words 'or Vice-Chairman' are omitted.
	20. In the entry beginning 'Chairman of a special health and social services agency', for 'services agency' there is substituted 'care agency'.
	21. In the entry 'Chief executive of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board', for 'the Simpler Trade Procedures Board' there is substituted 'SITPRO Limited'.
	22. In the entry 'Director of British Nuclear Fuels p.l.c.', for 'p.l.c.' there is substituted 'Limited'.
	23. In the entry beginning 'Director of any company in receipt of financial assistance', the words 'the Local Employment Act 1972, Part II of the Industry Act 1972 or' are omitted.
	24. In the entry 'Director of a company-
	(a) which, within the meaning of Part II of the Railways Act 1993, is a successor company wholly owned by the Crown, or
	(b) which, within the meaning of that Act, is wholly owned by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown, the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising or any other person acting on behalf of the Crown.',
	paragraph (b) is omitted (together with the word 'or' preceding it).
	25. In the entry beginning 'The Governor or Administrator', for 'dependent' there is substituted 'overseas'.
	26. In the entry beginning 'Governor, Medical Officer or other officer', the words ', Medical Officer' are omitted.
	27. For the entry 'Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales' there is substituted 'Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales or Prif Arolygydd Ei Mawrhydi dros Addysg a Hyfforddiant yng Nghymru'.
	28. In the entry 'Member of the Rail Passengers' Council in receipt of remuneration', the word 'Rail' is omitted.
	29. In the entry beginning 'Member of the panel of persons appointed under Schedule 4 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984', for 'Member' there is substituted 'President or vice-president'.
	30. In the entry 'Member appointed by the Secretary of State of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board', for 'Secretary of State' there is substituted 'Scottish Ministers'.
	31. In the entry 'Registration Officer appointed under section 8(2) or (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983', after '8(2)' there is inserted ', (2A)'.
	32. Any entry in Part 3 which is amended by this Order shall (if necessary) be moved to the appropriate place.
	The motion tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) relates to proposed amendments to schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Certain office holders have been disqualified from becoming Members of Parliament since the early 17th century. However, details of those disqualifications were contained in a number of different Acts. There were also concerns during the 1940s about special wartime appointments of Members of Parliament, and so a Select Committee was created to consider the issue of disqualification. However, it was not until 1955 that a Bill was brought before the House to list in one place all the office holders who were disqualified. The Bill was enacted in 1957. The disqualification Act was re-enacted in 1975 and it is the Act to which I refer today.
	The House of Commons Disqualification Act disqualifies members of the civil service, the police and armed forces and Members of foreign legislatures from becoming Members of Parliament. Schedule 1 lists those offices whose holders are also disqualified from membership of the House. The motion seeks the approval of the House to various amendments proposed to the list of offices in schedule 1 that disqualify the holder from membership of this House. If the House resolves that the amendment should be made, the procedure under the Act is for an Order in Council to be made to implement the resolution under powers contained in section 5(1) of the Act. That procedure has been followed on a number of occasions since the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 received Royal Assent-the first in 1961 and the last in February 1997.
	It is common practice for legislation that establishes new offices or that winds up existing ones to amend schedule 1 accordingly. That is often done during the passage of a Bill-for example, the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009-and is occasionally done in ordinary secondary legislation. There have also been Orders in Council that make amendments to the lists of disqualifying offices using the procedure under section 5 of the Act to bring schedule 1 up to date. Some of the amendments made under section 5 will relate to the consequences of legislation, but others are needed to reflect changes to non-statutory bodies and offices or to clarify the text of schedule 1. Because schedule 1 is continually being amended, the 1975 Act is reprinted from time to time in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Act to incorporate such amendments. The last reprint was issued in March 1997, and it is expected that a further reprint will be produced if the House agrees to the amendments that are proposed today.
	The amendments will do several things. Some will add offices that have been created by administrative action or by statute. Some will amend or correct existing entries, and others will remove offices that no longer exist or that are no longer thought to be appropriate for statutory disqualification. Hon. Members will appreciate the complexity of the motion before us. Indeed, this is the longest motion on which I have ever spoken. That is why copies of the explanatory note that describes the amendment entries in detail has been available in the Vote Office since 4 February.
	Ministers and their individual Departments have been responsible for the detail of additional entries and deletions that cover offices within their areas of responsibility. Judgments have been based on the same general principles and criteria that have been followed in the past, which are set out in the explanatory note. The only difference in criteria since 1997 is a proposal to change the de minimis level, which is the specified level below which paid offices in the gifts of the Crown or of Ministers do not normally attract disqualification. We propose that the level should rise from £8,000 to £10,000. Of course, the de minimis level has no effect on the level of remuneration that is received by office holders. Its purpose is merely to prevent disqualification at lower levels of payment.

Greg Knight: I quite understand why the Government wish to raise the de minimis threshold, but if they want to raise it again in the future, will the matter have to come before the House, or are there delegated powers for Ministers to increase the amount to keep in line with inflation, for example?

Barbara Keeley: That is a good point. I shall check that, but I believe that the amount is revised only when we follow the procedure that we are going through today, so I think that these things are considered in the round. Depending on what happens to inflation in the years to come, we might want to agree to consider it from time to time. I have just been looking for an entry that was revised in relation to this particular change. One of the revisions deletes the Football Licensing Authority because, in terms of the level of remuneration, only the chairman needs to be disqualified. With the new de minimis level, other office holders are paid less than that level. If the amendments are made, the chairman will continue to be disqualified, but other members of the authority will not, so that is one example.
	Of the 230 amendments that are covered, 109 are new entries, 96 are deletions and 25 are amendments to existing entries.
	Schedule 1 of the 1975 Act does not cover disqualification from the House of Commons due to mental health illnesses, but I am aware that that has quite frequently been the subject of debate in the House recently. The Mental Health Act 1983 provides, under section 141, that a Member's seat will become vacant if they are sectioned for longer than six months. The Government agree that there should be no distinction between mental and physical illness in that respect. We also agree with the recent recommendation from the Speaker's Conference that that disqualification should be repealed as soon as is practicable. This issue will therefore be discussed by a Select Committee of the House as soon as possible.
	Today's debate follows an established procedure and I commend the motion to the House.

Shailesh Vara: As we have heard, the motion updates the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and we on this side of the House welcome it.
	The 1975 Act basically clarifies who can stand for Parliament and who cannot. The proposed amendments are due mainly to the creation of new bodies and the renaming or merging of others, and to the scrapping of some offices and organisations. It is mainly a tidying-up exercise, but it is a considerable one and that is a reflection on the massive growth in the quango culture that has grown up since 1997. Given that there is a £10,000 de minimis threshold for some posts, it is very revealing to see the huge number of office holders who earn more than that per year-in many cases, a whole lot more.
	There are about 230 amendments to schedule 1 of the 1975 Act. Although they do not affect the existing disqualification from the Commons of members of the civil service, armed forces, police and judiciary, they extend that disqualification to some 2,100 new office holders. The 400 or so coroners are now included, and disqualification will also cover office holders in bodies such as the Care Council for Wales, the Accounts Commission for Scotland, and the NHS Pay Review Body.
	At the same time, the motion excludes members of about 500 other organisations that have been replaced or wound up. They include the Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel, which was wound up in 1997, the Cable Authority, which was dissolved in 1998, and the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board, which was wound up in 1999 and had its functions taken over by the Food Standards Agency.
	It is fair to say that this legislation is long overdue, as is clear from the dates that I have mentioned. Given that some of the posts have been out of date for a number of years, thought should perhaps have been given to updating the list a little earlier.
	Incidentally, the House will be aware of the Conservative pledge to get rid of a large number of quangos if we are successful at the next general election. In that event, I can assure the House that there will be a rapid revision of this particular legislation to take account of the far fewer quangos that will exist after the election.

Greg Knight: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for going further than we are going today, and disqualifying all these people from being Members of the House of Lords?

Shailesh Vara: My right hon. Friend makes a valid and serious point that will need to be considered. I very hope much that it will be, in due course.
	It is also noteworthy that some of the additions to the list of excluded people are a consequence of the failure of previous legislation to make it clear that certain posts were properly covered by the disqualification provisions. For example, the Commissioner for Older People in Wales has been added to the list because an order under the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Act 2006 was judged to be ineffective. In like manner, the chairmen or other non-executive directors of NHS foundation trusts are being added to the list because an order relating to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 was thought to be legally ineffective.
	Of course it is good that these failings have been identified and are now being put right, but the House will note that they are a reflection on a Government who sought to bring in massive and huge amounts of legislation, rather than concentrating on the quality of that legislation. That being said, we on this side of the House support the motion.

David Heath: I also have no problem supporting the motion. It is a sensible bit of housekeeping that we have to do every now and again to bring schedule 1 of the 1975 Act up to date.
	It is unfortunate that the schedule is out of date almost before it is printed. I had some informal discussions with the Minister only a few days ago about the position of members of the board of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. They are in fact disqualified by statute, but they will not be on this list because we have not yet concluded the relevant legislation. The moment that that particular enactment receives Royal Assent, the schedule in its consolidated form will be out of date and we will have to make a new amendment to it.
	In this world of IT, can we not find a better process of maintaining an up-to-date register of all those who are disqualified by enactment, instead of the list periodically coming back to the House and being reprinted on vellum?

Shailesh Vara: I believe that the legislation concerning IPSA specifically exempts members of IPSA, so there will not be a need to update the schedule in that respect. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my speech, one of the reasons that some people are added to the list is that the legislation that allows for them to be disqualified is judged to be ineffective because of its wording, rather than for any other reason. It is not always necessary for the schedule to be amended.

David Heath: The schedule represents the consolidation of the list, which includes those who have been exempted in statute. Updating it is a necessary process, but there must be a better way of doing it.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the huge number of quangos that exist. I take with a pinch of salt his assertion that any future Conservative Government would massively reduce the number of quangos. We remember previous Conservative Governments, who did not do it, and we remember when the Labour Government came to power in 1997 promising the bonfire of the quangos, but they did not do it, either. The public have good reason for taking with a pinch of salt any assertion that such a programme would be carried through by any future Administration.
	We all take the view that there are far too many people who are members of such bodies and carry out strategic and executive functions with no accountability to the local electorate. I would be much happier if there were a democratisation rather than the abolition of many of the organisations listed in the schedule.
	I want to raise one small issue with the Minister, although I do not expect her to know the answer. While perusing the 1975 Act, I noted that it is regularly reprinted, so we are not talking about an out-of-date version. Clause 1, as she mentioned, refers to disqualification on the basis of being a member of the regular armed forces. I note that there is still a reference to the Ulster Defence Regiment. That would have been a live consideration in 1975.
	The regiment was formed in about 1970 and performed sterling service in Northern Ireland over many years, but it no longer exists as a separate body. It has been absorbed into the Royal Irish Regiment. I can see why it might have been appropriate for the Ulster Defence Regiment, as a territorial force, which it always was, to be disqualified back in 1975. I am not sure whether that still applies. Will the Minister consult the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office to see whether the reference ought to be amended in the light of present circumstances? I do not know the answer. It seems to be an anomaly.
	The consolidated schedule is helpful in one respect. Members of the bodies listed know that they hold disqualified posts. Perhaps things have changed, and perhaps the Minister can reassure me, but in my experience there is very little information on what people should do about that if they intend to stand for election. I say that because in 1997 I was a member of the Audit Commission. As the Audit Commission is one of the proscribed organisations, that meant that I was disqualified from the House of Commons. I sought advice at that time from the Audit Commission and from others about exactly what I had to do to make sure that I was not inadvertently disqualified from being elected to membership of the House. I found it difficult to work out. Did I have to resign before nominations were opened; before the dissolution of the House; before nominations were closed; before the day of the election; or before the day that I was sworn in as a Member? Was I bound by the notice that I was required to give? If there were a sudden election and I handed in my notice as a member of the organisation, would I be able to resign with immediate effect? If I could not and the election were held three weeks after the day on which I handed in my resignation, would I be disqualified from standing?
	Those are real issues for people in that position, and it would be helpful if the Government provided clear information to all the bodies listed. They could then distribute advice simply and easily to their members, chairmen or whomever the listed post holder might be, saying, No, to comply with the disqualification Act you must tender your resignation with immediate effect on this date relative to the date of the election, or whatever the appropriate advice might be.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but would it not be better to supply the information to a single point of contact, such as the returning officer at the relevant local authority, rather than circulate it among quangos, where it might be lost or, at least, unavailable when needed?

David Heath: Ideally, the information would go to both bodies, because the candidate deals with the bureaucracy of the body of which they are a member and the returning officer. They clear with the returning officer what they have to do as a candidate, but at the same time they clear with the particular body's personnel department-the human resources department or whatever it is called nowadays-what they have to do to disengage themselves within the appropriate time scale from their duties. In some bodies, a person's resignation has to be considered at the next meeting, leaving them in legal limbo unless they can persuade the organisation to hold an emergency meeting in order to accept their resignation.
	That is not a huge point, and I do not want to labour it, but from my experience it ought to be sorted out. Happily, I sorted out my situation with the Audit Commission. I resigned at the appropriate time, and when I took my seat there was never any question that I was still a member of a body representing an office of profit under the Crown. The problem did not apply to me, but I was beset by doubt, which I should like extinguished for people in future.
	Having said that, I see on the list no entries that are clearly wrong or any glaringly obvious omissions. The explanatory note is quite the longest that I, like the Minister, have ever seen, but sometimes a lot of information is a good thing, and the note answered any questions that we might have had. I am grateful for that, and I have no difficulty in supporting the motion.

Christopher Chope: I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that the explanatory note is, indeed, very useful, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), on the Front Bench, says that if there is an incoming Conservative Government later this spring there will be a substantial cull of quangos. I cannot think of a better starting point than the consolidated list, which the Minister says will be drawn up as a result of this debate. It will be a convenient point of reference for all those quangos, and I hope that sooner rather than later we will have circulated a list of those that are going to be culled.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome makes a fair point that Conservative Governments have not always made a great success of maintaining a cull of quangos. Often, new quangos have come on to the scene. I remember the Matt cartoon that followed the establishment of the citizen's charter and the Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel. There are two people in bed, and the husband turns to the wife and says, Darling, I can't sleep-I'm so excited about the citizen's charter! The demise of the Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel is undoubtedly a good thing, and I hope that an incoming Conservative Government will not make similar mistakes in building up the quangocracy.
	This is a serious issue, because it shows that the number of people who are disqualified from standing for Parliament is increasing all the time. Those people represent the Executive-the state-and those of us in this legislature who wish for a smaller state would like to see a substantially reduced number of people who are disqualified from being able to stand for Parliament, because that would show that the legislature was going to get larger relative to the number of people in the Executive.

David Heath: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might agree that for every quango there should be a regular test of continuing usefulness. That should also apply to international organisations, which often get set up and are then maintained by their own status rather than because of any continuing usefulness. When I was elected leader of Somerset county council in 1985, I found that we still had a light horse committee charged with ensuring that there were enough light horses in Somerset to maintain the yeomanry in the first world war. I abolished that, and I think it was wise to do so.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Looking through the explanatory notes at the list of quangos that have been set up relatively recently, one is bound to wonder, in several cases, whether they retain a justification to this day. I hope that some of those will be the subject of the cull that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is promising.
	All these quangos represent a larger state than we would wish, as well as a lot of additional taxpayers' money. I am grateful to the Government for enabling us to see the extent to which the quangocracy has grown under this Government, at a time when, contrary to what is sometimes said, the civil service has also been increasing. For a time, the quangocracy increased as a lot of civil servants were hived off into agencies. We have seen an increase in agencies and a hiving off of civil servants, but also an overall growth in the size of the civil service and, therefore, in the size of the state. That is unsustainable in the current economic circumstances and, in any event, a bad thing for our country because it starves the private sector of resources and thereby damages our competitiveness and economic viability as a nation.
	I will not say any more. Although it disappoints me not to have the opportunity to divide the House, I do not see that there is any scope for doing so on this particular matter.

Barbara Keeley: It is important to emphasise that the 1975 Act is concerned with maintaining the independence of this House and safeguarding hon. Members from undue influence by the Executive through the exercise of patronage. That is an honourable aim. There may be some difficulties involved in keeping the list up to date, but it is well worth while to do so. This is clearly something that took some decades to come about. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). The House could look to update this more frequently.
	It is fair to say that there were some surprises for all of us who read the explanatory notes, although the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) knew about this from his previous experience when standing as a parliamentary candidate. It behoves everyone involved with elections, from returning officers in local authorities to those in political parties, to make it clear to people that they should check the position because all parliamentary candidates have to sign up to this. There appears to be a time lapse in the case of some bodies whereby people may not know that the office that they are holding is one that makes them open to disqualification-for example, surprisingly, the chair and board members of NHS foundation trusts. When somebody holding an office in the gift of the Crown, or perhaps on a lottery body that is dispensing Government funding, is a parliamentary candidate for some time, there is a question whether the political stances that they might take will clash with their employment.
	This has not been mentioned in the debate, but of course modern methods are used. The list is kept on websites, both commercial and official, so the information is updated regularly for people who need it.
	As I have been tempted in this direction, I shall make a correction to the suggestion that the number of quangos has risen. The latest Cabinet Office report, Public Bodies 2009, shows that the number of non-departmental public bodies has fallen by more than 10 per cent. The Government have also set out proposals in the Smarter Government White Paper to further reform and rationalise the arm's length sector.

Christopher Chope: The Minister says that the number has fallen, but since when?

Barbara Keeley: We are not meant to be debating quangos per se, but-

Peter Bone: You brought it up.

Barbara Keeley: Well, I did not actually bring up the number of quangos.
	There has been a suggestion that there are too many board members of quangos, or that they are too well paid. There is an annual Cabinet Office report on public bodies, which shows that there were 38,000 people on the boards of public bodies in 1997, which has now fallen to about 12,000. There are fewer posts, and many of them are not highly paid. In fact, some are unpaid. We announced proposals in the pre-Budget report to further control public sector pay, and such posts are part of that exercise.
	I have made the point that the information is kept on websites, but perhaps we can tie those websites into this process and make them clearer. I take the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the Ulster Defence Regiment. The motion is to update the schedule to the 1975 Act, rather than the Act itself, but I imagine that it will have to be tidied up at some point. However, we do not have to be concerned about posts that disappear, because people cannot be in them to be disqualified from being in the House of Commons. This exercise is really just to tidy up the list, but if there are any anomalies we will need to take a view on when the Act needs to be updated. I shall certainly do that.
	The process of considering when an office holder has to resign should be clear. I understand that the Cabinet Office gives guidance to candidates at the point of their potential resignation because of disqualification.
	Another point that we have not touched on is that parliamentary candidates may not be successful, after which they can be reconsidered. For candidates who were members of NHS trusts, in the civil service or office holders in any of the relevant posts, there is guidance on how they can be taken back into their post. I understand that the only problem would be if a parliamentary candidate had been so controversial and had taken such positions that they were no longer considered fit for office, but that is a very small consideration.

David Heath: rose-

Barbara Keeley: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.- [Interruption.]

David Heath: I am sorry about the noises off, because I actually think that this is quite an interesting point. I am not sure whether people are aware that it is possible for someone to be reappointed after a period. I am interested in whether that would go through without the normal requirements for re-advertisement and selection, and whether posts can be held in abeyance and then filled by Executive order. Will the hon. Lady write to me at some point with information about that?

Barbara Keeley: I am certainly happy to let the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire have the guidance that the Cabinet Office uses. Interestingly, one of my concerns has been that I can foresee people being caught in a situation of not having a great prospect of success and wanting to get back to their posts afterwards. Both in the civil service and in the posts that we are considering, people can be reconsidered to be taken back after the election if they have not been successful. I will check what the guidance is and let the Opposition spokesmen have it.
	We have had a useful look at the list today, and updating and tidying up the schedule is important. It is important also to say that the process is ongoing; we recently had the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which updated the schedule. As Members have said, it is important that the list of office holders disqualified from standing as Members of this House is as up-to-date as possible before the forthcoming general election. If the House agrees to the motion, a reprint of the 1975 Act will help provide a more accurate picture. I commend the motion to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Crime and Security Bill

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
	That it be an instruction to the Crime and Security Bill Committee that it has power to make provision in the Bill to enable restrictions to be placed on the hours during which alcohol may be sold or supplied.
	With the leave of the House, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), will respond to points raised in, and close, the debate. I do not intend to outline the purpose and effect of the proposed new clause in detail, because this debate focuses on the motion before us. Members will have the opportunity to debate the measure fully in the Bill's remaining stages. However, it may help hon. Members if I set out the Government's reasons for the change.
	The Licensing Act 2003 saw the biggest reform in licensing law for more than 40 years. It impacted on around 200,000 businesses.

Simon Burns: The Minister, in leading for the Government on this motion, rightly said that members of the Public Bill Committee can discuss the contents of any amendments and new clauses. However, given that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the lead Department in this area of the Bill, will we have the pleasure of his company in Committee and him leading for the Government?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I assume that I will do so in the remaining stages of the Bill, and I hope that my presence in the House will be welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members. Clearly, my hon. Friend and other Home Office Ministers are leading on the Bill and are taking it through Committee, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
	I was talking about the impact of the 2003 Act on the people of the country. It affected 200,000 businesses, non-profit making clubs, charities, and community and voluntary groups, and almost the entire population of England and Wales who live in the vicinity of, or who visit, licensed premises. I believe that the Act has been a considerable success in many areas. We have seen effective action taken by local authorities and the police, working in partnership, to contain problems.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the proposal. Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the Select Committee on Home Affairs report, Policing in the 21st Century, which deals with alcohol-related crime? Does he feel that, as a result of the measure, there will be a reduction in alcohol-related crime?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Rather than the Minister replying to that, I should just say that the right hon. Gentleman's intervention is really not appropriate to today's discussion. I am sure he will have the opportunity to raise that matter with the Minister at a later stage.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we obviously appreciate the work of the Home Affairs Committee and look forward to discussion in due course.

Greg Knight: If the House passes this instruction, it could wholly change the dynamic of the Committee. What power will the Committee have, if the House approves the instruction, to call new witnesses on the sale of alcohol?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I would have to check on that to give the right hon. Gentleman the-

Simon Burns: Do you not know?

Gerry Sutcliffe: At this moment, I do not have- [ Interruption. ] No. I am a licensing Minister. The sale of alcohol and the licensing of premises is a matter for DCMS, and the other issues affect the whole Government. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), and I will write to him in due course on the effect of the measure on the Committee. It will not have a massive effect, because the issues will be the same.
	We have never been complacent on alcohol issues. On presenting the statutory guidance made under the 2003 Act to Parliament in July 2004, the then Secretary of State for Culture stated in her foreword:
	We will monitor the impact of the 2003 Act on crime and disorder and the other licensing objectives. If necessary in the light of these findings, we will introduce further legislation with the consent of Parliament to strengthen or alter any provisions.
	The 2003 Act came fully into force in November 2005 and has now been in force for more than four years. As promised, the Government have kept the impact of the Act under close scrutiny and we are now asking the House to extend the powers that we originally gave to the licensing authorities in the light of our evaluation.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister explain what happened between December 2009 and February 2010 that caused the Government to bring forward this motion to include in the Bill measures that were not thought appropriate to include a few months ago?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman considers these issues in great detail, and he will be aware that the problems caused by alcohol are dealt with across government. Different Departments have a viewpoint-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. This debate is not on whether the restrictions on the hours during which alcohol may be sold are a good thing or not: it is merely on whether to allow the Public Bill Committee to make such a provision. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will stick to the matter in hand.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to clarify your ruling. Would it be in order for the Minister to address the issue of why these provisions were not included in the Bill back in December, but are being proposed for inclusion now?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is acceptable, but the debate is not on whether the restrictions are good or bad.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The idea is to try to maximise our support for the police and local authorities in relation to alcohol and crime and disorder. In our view, the powers under the 2003 Act need to be strengthened, given the evaluation that was published in March 2008. We have been trying to find the earliest opportunity to provide that extra support to the police, as I am sure the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) would wish us to do. We need to give maximum support to the police to deal with those small areas where crime and disorder occur.

Keith Vaz: What is baffling the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and me is why now. Why are we dealing with this issue now, in the middle of the Bill? Why are we debating an instruction at this stage? Has a research note of some kind arrived on my hon. Friend's desk? Why now rather than at the beginning of the Bill?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am confused that Members appear not to want us bring forward support for the police to the House at the earliest opportunity. The evaluation report contained issues that needed to be looked at, and this is the first opportunity to put forward provisions that will assist the police.

Tom Brake: Can the Minister confirm that it is the police who have requested that the Government bring forward this matter now? He just said that it was.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I did not say that it was the police. I said that the provisions would give powers to support the police and local authorities. The change in the Licensing Act 2003 took powers from the magistrates courts and gave them to local government. The effect of the Act has been to support the work done by the partnership between local government and the police. The Government wish to ensure that we provide what extra support is possible, and it is clear that the hours of 3 am and 6 am are an issue when it comes to alcohol-related crime.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, we respect totally what you have said, and if we catch your eye, we will try to stay in order. But the Minister is now advancing reasons as to why this is happening, and therefore exciting hon. Members into wanting to intervene because he is dealing with substance, not process.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I apologise to my right hon. Friend if he feels that I am not dealing with process-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The times in this proposal are not the issue that we should be debating at this point.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I find this rather surprising. There should be broad support for the measure being put into the Bill and the outcome that we are trying to achieve, and we are trying to be as helpful as possible to the House in discussing our intentions.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I will not give way; I want to move forward.
	Our intention is to move a new clause in the Bill amending the Licensing Act 2003 by inserting five new sections-sections 172A to 172E. These new sections will extend only to England and Wales.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice? The Minister did not answer my earlier point. He is talking-quite eloquently and knowledgeably-about new clauses that will be introduced to a Bill being discussed in Committee upstairs. This input into the Bill comes from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the hon. Gentleman is the responsible Minister, so why is he not to be on the Committee? That would allow hon. Members to hold effective discussions about this matter with the lead Minister. Instead, that will have to be done with a Home Office Minister. This seems to have been cobbled together at the last minute, but it appears that the Government cannot take it to its logical conclusion by having the relevant Minister for this part of the legislation in Committee to be held to account by hon. Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. The points that he has raised are not points of order for the Chair.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the argument that the Minister is pursuing, which appears to be that the Government have had a change of heart and want to include provisions on the sale of alcohol in the Bill, would you, Madam Deputy Speaker, allow those of us who might want to include other things in this Bill to submit a manuscript amendment to the instruction before the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, that would not be allowed.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I would like to progress to the substance of what we are trying to achieve.
	As I said, there will be five new sections in the Bill-sections 172A to 172E-and they will extend only to England and Wales. The changes to the 2003 Act will provide licensing authorities, almost all of which are local authorities, with a power to ban 24-hour licences-

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Gerry Sutcliffe: One last time.

Christopher Chope: I do not want to be drawn into discussing substance, but why was the opportunity not taken to put the new sections in the Bill when it was first printed and presented in December 2009?

Gerry Sutcliffe: This is the first opportunity that we have had to put it before the House since our decision to include it in the Bill. As I have said, we are trying to be helpful in giving the House the opportunity to have a full discussion about the issues.
	I was talking about how the changes would provide licensing authorities, almost all of which are local authorities, with a power to ban 24-hour licences in either the whole of their areas or in smaller, more confined parts. However, the new clause would require that such an order may not be made unless certain preconditions are met. The effect of an order would be to restrict sales or supplies of alcohol so that they could not take place between the hours of 3 am and 6 am. Such an order would override the effect of any premises licence, club premises certificate or temporary event notice otherwise authorising sales or supplies at that time of the early morning. It would also override any licence, certificate or temporary event notice regardless of whether it was issued before or after the order was made.
	The reason we have chosen to restrict such bans to between 3 am and 6 am relates to the findings of an evaluation, published in March 2008, of the 2003 Act. In particular, the evaluation reported:
	Thus for the-well-measured-category of more serious crimes of violence, there was an increase in the number of offences committed between 3am and 6am that was small in absolute terms - 236 incidents - but large in proportionate terms - 25%...The peak time for serious violent crime shifted forward by about an hour.

Peter Bone: rose-

Gerry Sutcliffe: I want to continue.
	By focusing on the period between 3 am and 6 am, our intention is not to restrict unnecessarily-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise again for interrupting the Minister, but we are now getting into the detail. There really is no need at this stage for that amount of detail.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Thank you for your guidance and advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The debate on the motion before the House is, quite rightly, about the process that we are moving forward. We believe that the motion will support our attempt to help the police, licensing authorities and local government, by ensuring that they have every opportunity to reduce crime on our streets. I hope that the House will support the motion.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, if not to talk about the substantive measures that may or may not come forward as a consequence of the motion, which the Minister outlined in his opening comments.
	This reflects some of the comments made thus far, but as an opening remark I have to say that it is remarkable that the Government should yet again be coming to the House to seek further permissions in relation to what is becoming the Christmas tree Bill of all Christmas tree Bills-a Bill that has seemingly had more added to it than was in it in the first place. The ink on the printed version of the Bill was hardly dry before we learned that new provisions would be added. The Home Secretary informed the House on Second Reading that additional clauses would be incorporated to cover compensation for victims of overseas terrorism. Only last week the Government returned to the House again to seek a Ways and Means resolution to permit additional provisions on car-clamping. We discovered yesterday that they are now adding provisions to the Bill on stop-and-search powers in the context of control orders, and now we have the additional consent to debate measures on licensing hours that is sought by today's motion.
	It is astonishing that with so little time left in this Parliament, the Government should be using it in such a shambolic way. So much for joined-up government. If the motion is passed, the Government will simply seek to add another eye-catching initiative to a hotch-potch of a Bill-a Bill full of disparate measures designed to create headlines, rather than real solutions to the problems of this country, which are made worse by this Government.
	Why the urgency? Why the sudden need to obtain permission today? Is it because the Government want to use the powers set out in the motion to repeal their shambolic alcohol disorder zones-a policy so successful that, as the Home Secretary confirmed in answer to a parliamentary question yesterday, no local authority has exercised its ability to implement one? The answer is no: in fact, the Government propose to spend more time on that failed measure, by tinkering with the drafting in the vain hope that that will have councillors beating a path to Marsham street, clamouring to become the first recipient of an alcohol disorder zone. The Government claim that such a measure would be a last resort, but that is more a reflection on them than on the unworkable policy to which that claim relates.
	Is the reason perhaps that some new and urgent research has been forthcoming, highlighting new problems arising in the early hours of the morning from the impact of the Licensing Act 2003, and thereby justifying the need all of a sudden to bring forward this motion requiring debate in the Public Bill Committee on the Crime and Security Bill? The answer is no: in fact, the Government have known about the issues for around three years and done absolutely nothing about them. The Minister has already referred to the Home Office document, Violent crime, disorder and criminal damage since the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, which was published in July 2007. That report highlighted rising levels of criminal damage, stating:
	The number of offences happening between 3am and 6am were consistently higher in each of the four three-monthly periods after the introduction of the Act compared with the equivalent periods in the previous year.
	That study noted a 22 per cent. increase in all offences committed between 3 am and 6 am.
	Again, is the reason for today's motion that there is some new evidence? Let us look at the evidence drawn to our attention in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Evaluation of the Impact of the Licensing Act 2003, which was published nearly two years ago, in March 2008. It said that
	violent crime occurring in the small hours of the morning has grown.
	If the Government have known about the issue for such a long time, why the sudden urgency? Why has this not been addressed before? Why was this measure not deemed sufficiently important to be incorporated in the Bill before it was published? Indeed, if these issues have been known about for so long, why were suitable powers not included in the Policing and Crime Act 2009, which dealt with licensing measures only a few months ago?
	Perhaps the Government finally believe that there is a key issue involved in the number of pubs, off licences and other outlets remaining open between 3 am and 6 am. Apparently not. The Home Secretary told the Today programme as recently as 19 January that open-all-hours licensing was not an issue. He said:
	It's not 24-hour licensing...The average extra amount of time that pubs and clubs are open is 21 minutes.
	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's evaluation, published in 2008, states:
	There is no evidence of 24 hour drinking, with only a minority of premises securing 24 hour licences and very few actually utilising those hours. There have been only limited changes to actual opening hours.
	The evaluation highlighted research showing that
	470 pubs, bars and nightclubs have 24 hour licences, but there is no evidence that more than a handful operate on that basis.
	If that is the case, the Government's introduction of this motion today paints a slightly confused picture. Do they now believe that this is an issue? Previously, they suggested that it was not. Their approach is confused and shambolic, at best.

Peter Bone: I guess that the issue on which the House will divide is whether the power should be given to the Committee to consider making the restrictions. The Committee would then argue about them. I wonder whether this has been tacked on as some kind of vote-grabbing measure because there is a general election on the horizon.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
	We believe that the fettering of the licensing powers given to local authorities is a significant problem. It might therefore be helpful for the Public Bill Committee to be able to debate the issue. That would allow its members to highlight the fact that, between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the number of finished admissions for patients with an alcohol-related diagnosis increased from 644,000 to 945,000-a rise of 47 per cent. It would also allow a debate on how alcohol was a factor in almost 42,000 cases of children under the age of 18 being admitted to English hospitals in the past three years, according to official figures.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the motion would allow a debate on alcohol-related crime, which costs the taxpayer £7.3 billion. The worry for me and others is the possibility of another order being brought before the House before the recess on, for example, the question of whether there should be a floor price for alcohol. The Government have resisted such a proposal, but I am worried that it could be put into another motion. We need a substantive debate on these subjects, rather than a brief debate on process.

James Brokenshire: Obviously, if the motion is accepted, it will facilitate debate in the Public Bill Committee. It would then be open to right hon. and hon. Members to table amendments on Report, should we reach that stage, which would facilitate the wider debate on the substantive issues that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I hear his concern about the number of orders and procedural matters that are being brought before the House in relation to this Bill. There is a worry that some completely new issue that has nothing to do with alcohol could be tacked on. I have already described the Bill as the Christmas tree Bill of all Christmas tree Bills, with all these additional provisions being added at the last moment. This does not aid proper consideration.
	The normal process for Public Bill Committees involves gathering evidence in advance, to aid debate and discussion in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and he will know that that mirrors the Select Committee approach. That will not happen in this case, however, because this measure is simply being tacked on. For example, there have been some rumours-albeit Ministers have said that this is not the case-that significant issues such as universal jurisdiction might be added to the Bill at some point. Ministers are saying no at the moment, but it is not inconceivable that something might suddenly pop up that relates to the provisions, so we might have another order put before the House and another interesting debate on procedure, leading to further amendments being tabled in this way.

Tom Brake: As has been said, other Members might like to use such a procedure as an opportunity to promote matters of interest to them. For example, my party might have liked to have tabled an amendment to get rid of Government plans for ID cards-but that, of course, would not have been allowed, whereas this proposal, which is completely outwith the Bill, is being included in it.

James Brokenshire: This afternoon's debate has been helpful in highlighting procedural issues about the operation of the House. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the shadow Leader of the House is in his place alongside me, as I am sure he is taking note of some of the procedural issues relating to how certain matters can be added at a very late stage of a Bill and any attendant impact on consideration in Committee and the House's approach to scrutinising legislation.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend puts his finger on what is disturbing about this instruction motion today: the Government are seeking to widen the scope of the Bill. Does he have any information about whether the Government are to instruct the Committee of Selection to look at the membership of the Committee and perhaps broaden it to take into account its new responsibility should we agree to the motion?

James Brokenshire: I am certainly not aware of any such discussions, through the usual channels or otherwise, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have heard my right hon. Friend's point, to which he could respond in his summing-up speech.
	Agreeing to the motion facilitates further discussion of important issues-about the fact that young people are drinking twice as much as they did in 1990, for example. As I believe the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) highlighted, there were 973,000 violent attacks last year in which the offender was under the influence of alcohol. We welcome what appears to be the Government's late conversion to our thinking in bringing forward this motion to allow debate on these issues, as by doing so they appear to recognise the failure of the measures that they introduced in the first place.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Just for the record, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he supports the Government's proposals?

James Brokenshire: That relates to substance, so I would be outwith the terms of the motion if I engaged with that. I was welcoming the opportunity to debate these issues and the fact that the Government, having seemingly defended their 24-hour licensing by saying that it was not a problem, now recognise that there is a problem. I am welcoming the Government's conversion to our way of thinking in recognising through the motion that there is an issue about licensing.

Keith Vaz: I am glad to hear that the Minister wants to engage on the issue of substance; one way for him to do so would be to join the Committee.

James Brokenshire: I am sure that the Minister will jump at the opportunity, given that he clearly wishes to take part in the substantive debate. It would be a shame if a lot of the issues were considered in detail in Committee and he was not there. I believe he was offering his services on Report. That highlights the problem of bringing in provisions at the last moment: the proper debate and discussion that we should have in Committee and in accordance with the process that involves the Committee of Selection is not necessarily facilitated, because the most appropriate Minister-on the basis of his responsibilities-may not be there to deal with certain aspects of the Bill.

Shailesh Vara: Given that we have talked about the possibility of altering the membership of the Committee, can my hon. Friend enlighten us as to whether provision can be made to have extra time so that the Committee can consider the new proposal that has been put forward?

James Brokenshire: I can confirm that we have been given an extra day in Committee, although that happened before we realised that the new provisions were being added. Ostensibly, the purpose was to address certain issues relating to, for example, compensation for victims of overseas terrorism. We understand that provisions relating to stop-and-search powers in control orders have also been added, and that some changes have been to the car-clamping provisions. As I have said, there has been a fair amount of movement since the Bill's First Reading.

Shailesh Vara: May I establish, just for the sake of clarity, whether it was specifically stated when the Government allowed the extra day that this measure could be debated during that time?

James Brokenshire: I am not aware that it was, but obviously extra time will be available for debate on such measures, and obviously, if the motion is passed, the Committee will have an opportunity to debate Government amendments relating to the power that they propose to give local authorities to prevent licensees from opening their premises between 3 am and 6 am.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has referred to the granting of one extra day for debate on new clauses previously introduced by the Government. Does he agree that a further day is necessary in the light of the major proposals that the Government are now presenting?

James Brokenshire: That is certainly worth reflecting on. I am sure that discussions will take place between the appropriate channels, and I would not wish to intercede, or intervene, in any such discussions. To be fair, I think we have been making good progress and dealing with the Bill at the right pace. Nevertheless, the introduction of measures at such a late stage is not helpful to proper consideration and ensuring that we use the time as appropriately and effectively as possible. I know from experience that the Government have form in this regard. For instance, the Policing and Crime Bill-enacted in 2009-contained provisions on significant and sensitive matters such as gang injunctions and DNA retention, which had been added to the Bill at the last minute and which were problematic in terms of the time that might be allowed for the Committee to debate them.
	The motion will allow us to test some of the Government's thinking on the restriction of the sale and supply of alcohol between 3 am and 6 am. It will enable us to scrutinise the proposal to establish whether, for example, it misses the point by not taking account of the fact that some of the problems may arise before 3 am. Given that the Government have identified the period between 3 am and 6 am as when problems occur, the Committee should be able to debate-if the motion is passed-whether, if the problems exist, they might have been caused much earlier in the evening.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate on the substance of the proposal will take place in Committee. I am sure that he will not dwell on that particular aspect for much longer.

James Brokenshire: I was merely seeking to establish why the motion may have been considered appropriate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense that some Members are somewhat sceptical about whether it should have been permitted.
	While I would not wish to be seen as helping the Government, I think it useful to outline some of the considerations that might be necessary in Committee in order to find reasons to justify the tabling of the motion. If it is passed, the measure will need to be scrutinised. Indeed, it will be necessary to test whether it will work at all. I know what the Government have said about late-night licensing and 24-hour opening. If councils must prove that such measures will reduce crime, problems may arise if the Government set out reasons why that is not the case. We need to explore some of the inconsistencies. I hope that the motion will allow us to ask the Minister, for example, how he expects councils to meet the tests that they intend to introduce, how many councils he expects to use the proposed powers, and how many licences will be affected. I appreciate that those are matters of substance for the Committee to debate, but I think that they need to be considered in the context of whether the motion is permissible.

Peter Bone: I am still not convinced that the House should not divide and vote against the motion, because the Executive are, in effect, adding measures at the last minute and thus restricting debate in Committee on other issues; that must be the case, because the Government are not providing additional time. I am not really interested in the substance of the Bill; what I am interested in is whether this is an abuse of Parliament, and whether we should divide. I would be very interested to hear my hon. Friend's advice on this matter.

James Brokenshire: Well, I am interested in the issues of substance. I think that my hon. Friend made those comments in the context of this procedural motion, because I know how keenly he fights for the interests of his constituents in respect of antisocial behaviour and crime. I believe that there is a need to debate in Committee the issues raised. So far, we have been making good progress through the Bill, and therefore there is sufficient time to consider these aspects, although I must say that it is not helpful for new issues to be highlighted at the last minute. Therefore, although it could have been problematic, as we have been proceeding in a fairly efficient manner, seeking to deal succinctly where possible with certain provisions in the Bill, there is some latitude, so I would not wish my hon. Friend to call a Division on that point of justification. It is, of course, open to him to call a Division, and I respect the points he makes about the need for the role of Parliament and its scrutiny to be applied properly in relation to the actions of the Executive.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend says he is prepared to set aside for a moment the general arguments about these issues, but does he not agree that there is a point to be made about the use of this procedure? Although it is clearly not out of order, it is nevertheless a procedure that should be deplored. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government should have put these provisions in the Bill at the outset, if that is what they wanted to do?

James Brokenshire: I do agree. The Government should have introduced these provisions at the outset for the reasons I have given-such as those to do with scrutiny, the taking of evidence and witnesses being able to appear-in order to allow the changes in the structure of Bill proceedings that this House has approved to operate effectively and appropriately. I am sure such procedural issues will be reflected upon, as will the question of whether it might be an abuse of the House if such procedure-adding measures into Bills at the last minute-were used on a regular basis.
	I feel that this is simply the latest pre-election directive from the Downing street bunker. It betrays just how out of touch it has become, because these measures fail to give local authorities any real control over closing time, and they fail to give effective powers or to deal with fundamental presumptions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows he is straying wide of the motion now.

James Brokenshire: I shall draw my comments to a conclusion, but I have to say that I get the sense that, in bringing forward this motion this afternoon, the Government have accepted that their attempt to create a continental-style café culture, as promised with the Licensing Act 2003, has simply exacerbated Britain's binge-boozing problems. As I have said, a debate needs to take place highlighting the fact that hospital admissions have gone up, violent crime has gone up, death rates have gone up, and-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that that debate is for the Committee.

James Brokenshire: And I very much look forward to the debate, because this sort of thing simply cannot go on, when we consider the link between alcohol and violent crime. I believe it is time for the British people to call time on this Government and their measures, which have caused so much damage to communities throughout the country.

George Young: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in our proceedings, during questions to the Secretary of State for Wales and in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), the Minister from the Wales Office used the expression two-faced Tories. It might well be that with all the noise that was going on, Mr. Speaker did not hear that exchange, but may I ask you or Mr. Speaker to reflect on whether that was parliamentary language and, if it was not, whether, at an appropriate time when all the parties are here, the Minister might be invited to withdraw that remark?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly study the record of what was said at Question Time, refer it to Mr. Speaker and advise him of the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker will come back with a statement on that.

Tom Brake: Members who have listened to this afternoon's debate will have noticed that there is no real underlying theme to the Crime and Security Bill. There is no clear statement of the Government's intention on crime. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) has quite rightly described it as a Christmas tree of a Bill. We have had the baubles, the tinsel, the wooden figurines, the Christmas lights and an angel on top and now we are adding some decorations made out of straw and pipe cleaners, too.
	Members who have followed the Bill closely in Committee will know that we have had clauses on stop and search and tackling bureaucracy, which we welcome. We have had clauses on DNA, responding grudgingly to a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, that we do not welcome. We have provisions on wheel clamping-a good populist issue-that all Members from all parties support although of course the AA says that they will not work. We have what we have dubbed gangbos, or gang injunctions, which we do not particularly welcome. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch has said, we have also had added in clauses relating to victims of overseas terrorism and to stop-and-search control orders. Finally, we have licensing added to all that.
	As I highlighted in my intervention, one thing that concerns me about the Bill is the facility-or ease-with which the Government have been able to add in a whole new group of law and order issues, whereas if Members from other parties had sought to introduce amendments to the Bill that were as far removed from it as the proposals today, that option would not have been available.
	We have before us powers for licensing authorities to stop businesses selling alcohol between 3 am and 6 am. While I was carrying out some research into that, I was given a copy of the Library note entitled Licensing Act 2003: objecting to a licence. Members and the Minister will be aware that on 29 January a new proposal came into effect whereby a licensing authority can now object to a licence application or initiate a licensing review. I must say-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. Under this motion, we are discussing whether members of the Public Bill Committee can go into the issues that he is raising, rather than doing what he is now attempting to do.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I noticed that other Members have been allowed to stray a little wider-indeed, the Minister has done so on a number of occasions. I can assure you that I do not intend to detain the House for more than a couple of minutes.
	I agree that it would have been appropriate to assess the new legislation that took effect just a couple of days ago and to see whether it addresses some of the issues that the Minister wants to address.
	I have one other important point to make, which goes to the heart of what the Minister wants us to address and of whether it is appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in Committee. The issue was raised by the Minister. He highlighted the problem of the increase in crime between 3 am and 6 am, but the chart given to us by the Library highlights that that increase has taken place between 12 am and 6 am. I ask the Minister why he has chosen the 3 am to 6 am slot rather than the 12-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman again and remind him that those matters will be discussed by the members of the Committee if and when the time comes.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall draw my brief remarks to a conclusion.
	Given that the Government want to pursue this line of inquiry, I certainly do not think that we need to debate the matter. Whether it would be appropriate for us to debate it in the proceedings of the Bill Committee, in which we have made significant progress, received evidence from a series of witnesses and consulted a number of parties to seek their views, is a matter that we could debate at length now, although you would not allow us to do so.
	I did not think that the Minister's statement explaining why the Government seek to introduce the debate into the Bill's proceedings was terribly helpful. There are many questions that we will clearly have to discuss, or that we will need to raise with the relevant Minister in Committee, which we do not have time to debate further today. As the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Retail Consortium and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association have highlighted in their briefing on this subject, there are concerns that the amendment is being proposed at a time when existing legislation, which was introduced just a couple of days ago, could potentially achieve exactly what the Government want to do, but has not been given time to take effect.

Keith Vaz: I, too, will be brief, because I am keen not to make a speech that is out of order, bearing in mind the narrow nature of the motion. The Government could have had an easy win on this matter, because the proposal that is mentioned in the motion is very good, but we cannot discuss its substance even though the Minister tried to slip in, I noticed, a justification for it at the end of his speech. I would expect nothing less than a quick passing of the ball from the Under-Secretary who is the Minister for Sport. The fact that Members on both sides of the House are giving him a hard time is not because we do not like him. I have known him for many years, and I think that he is a great Minister for Sport. He is in his dream job, he has probably attended more cup finals than the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and I have had samosas, and he goes about his business with great elegance. Those of us with an interest in home affairs-this is a home affairs Bill-will note that he was not, as I recall, present on Second Reading. Perhaps he was off commenting on Mr. John Terry's love life at the time. Indeed, why should the Minister for Sport sit in on a debate on the Crime and Security Bill if none of the issues relates directly to him? I know that he voted on it, of course, because all members of the Government would vote on and support something of that kind.
	What the Minister has done, however, is to excite people such as myself, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and others who really do want to have a discussion about the substance of the proposal because it is a first-class proposal. Let me try to explain, without straying into the substance at all, that it is entirely in keeping with recommendations that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has made over a number of years. It is also in keeping with debates that we have had in the House on issues of substance concerning alcohol-related crime. However, there are worries about the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. I realise their urgency and that the Minister wanted to come here and get his motion in quickly so that the proposal could be part of the discussions in the Public Bill Committee, rather than being left until Third Reading or the remaining stages of the Bill when Members on both sides of the House might have accused him of coming in at the very last minute to discuss issues of substance. He wants to give members of the Bill Committee the opportunity to discuss the proposal, but that will not give other Members of the House the opportunity to do so.

Peter Bone: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether his Select Committee could have an evidence session, as the Bill Committee clearly cannot have one, to help the Bill Committee to reach a decision?

Keith Vaz: I had not considered that until the hon. Gentleman mentioned it. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is here, and he is a distinguished member of the Select Committee, but I do not think that we need to hold an evidence session as I am sure we are all in favour of reducing alcohol-related crime.
	When we get to the substance of the proposal rather than the process, I am sure that the Minister for Sport will be cheered from the rafters. We will say that he is a great man who has made a great proposal, but I am afraid that he has been rather hamfisted in the way that he has brought it to the House.
	That is why we have been having a go at him, and I presume it is why the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism has arrived to give him reinforcement. It is also why my right hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton, West (Mr. McAvoy) keeps coming in and out of the Chamber. He is not here at the moment: I can stand up to lots of Members of this House, but I tend to shiver a little when I see him.
	I know that the Government want a vote on this motion, but I hope that the Opposition will not divide the House. I accept that the process could have been slightly better, but this is a very important issue and we should use any extra time that we may get to discuss it.
	People in our constituencies raise matters like this with us every week. We are not discussing the substance of the proposal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that local people come up to you and say, Forty two per cent. of crime victims say the crimes are alcohol related. Or they may not-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sadly, what they do not come up to me and say is, Let this be an instruction to the Committee. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to talk about.

Keith Vaz: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I shall be going back to Leicester tomorrow night, and I shall be there on Friday and Saturday. I am sure that people will say to me, Well done, Mr. Vaz, for supporting the motion to instruct the Public Bill Committee to allow a debate on these issues.
	The Minister for Sport is intervening in a Home Office debate. When the matter is discussed on Report, I hope that those of us with an interest in it will have time to discuss it further. If that happens, I think he will receive plaudits from all sides of the House. We may have been beastly to him this afternoon, but we support him really. We hope very much that the instruction will go through and that members of the Public Bill Committee will have the opportunity to discuss these serious and important issues.
	However, the House as a whole must have a chance to discuss them too. The Government have made a decision, although at a very late stage. The Home Secretary should have talked about the proposal on Second Reading, but we accept that the Government did not want to bring it forward then. Nevertheless, the House needs to be able to discuss it as soon as possible.
	If necessary, I will gladly support the Government in the Division Lobby today, to ensure that the Public Committee is able to discuss this very important measure.

Christopher Chope: I rise briefly to put on record my great unhappiness with the procedure being adopted by the Government. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that he thought the proposal was urgent but, if that were so-and following the 2008 report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport-it could have been incorporated in the Bill at the outset.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) said, the proposal could probably have been incorporated in a Bill that went through the House in the previous Session and which is now on the statute book. It is obviously not urgent now, except in the sense that the Government, seeing a general election looming, may think that a way to avoid a public debate on this issue is to try to throw in the towel now. Although they said that the Licensing Act 2003 would not create more crime and disorder on the streets, perhaps they accept that it has in fact had that consequence.
	I shall not go into the substance of the matter, but I can see that it may be expedient to bring the instruction forward now. However, the problem with expediency is that it often cuts across the principles of parliamentary procedure. It would be very expedient for the Executive permanently to suspend the Standing Orders of this House, but in effect that would be to tear up our unwritten constitution. The procedures of the House are our constitution, in the absence of a written constitution. I do not think that we should accept the expediency argument easily, or without examining it.
	One consequence of our giving the hapless Minister a bit of a rough ride this afternoon is that his Whips Office may well be angry that the procedure has been so mishandled that the House has been detained for as long as it has and everybody is being kept on tenterhooks, not knowing whether there will be a Division or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) has indicated his views on that.
	I am worried that because the Government did not include the provision in the Bill on Second Reading, which they could easily have done, that prevented hon. Members from referring to the matter in that debate and prevented evidence being given to the Public Bill Committee.

Greg Knight: Surely there is another point that needs to be taken into account. Because of the procedure being used, the composition of the Bill Committee is different from what it might have been, had Members of the House known that the issue was capable of being discussed during the proceedings in Committee?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is right. Normally, the Committee of Selection will take into account preferences expressed by right hon. and hon. Members about serving on a Public Bill Committee, and it might have reached different conclusions if the matter had been included in the Bill at that stage. We have heard, and the Minister accepts, that it would have been appropriate for him to be on the Committee, but it is probably now too late for that. Or perhaps the Committee of Selection will be reconvened and he can serve on the Committee to answer the points raised by hon. Members.
	There are consequences for programming, too. As has been mentioned, the Committee will have less time to consider other parts of the Bill unless extra time is given. One extra day has apparently been awarded already, but having heard today's debate, I should have thought that that was insufficient. We have not yet heard what will happen on Report. Will we get extra time for Report stage? The Bill will be much more complex than it was originally.
	I wonder where all this is leading. Although everyone in the House may think that as a matter of expediency the amendments that will follow from the instruction, if it is passed this evening, are a good thing, there may well be people-for example, those who have invested in licensed premises-who take a different view. When will they be able to make representations? We must always take into account third-party interests, outside interests and the minority's opportunity to speak. There is no opportunity for people who may be adversely affected by the changes being proposed to the Bill to make their representations in a timely manner.
	I see this as a serious issue relating to procedure. That I why I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, has been taking such a keen interest in this debate. Ultimately, the Standing Orders of the House cannot prevent the Government from introducing such a motion and making it the subject of a vote, but we can try to prevent them from trying to use the specious excuse of urgency, when it is patently obvious that there is nothing urgent about it.
	It is not as though there has been some ruling from the European Court of Human Rights or the Supreme Court in the past few days which needs the Government urgently to use a legislative vehicle to change the law-everything about the Bill that is known now was known in December, when the Bill was presented and when it was the subject of a Second Reading debate.
	If we divide the House tonight, would the mischievous Government suggest that Conservatives had voted against the substance, which we are not allowed to debate, and which has not been exposed to us, except in small part by the Minister? The Minister's colleague from the Home Office, the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, shook his head when I said that such accusations might be made against us on that matter. However, with the proximity of a general election, and knowing how sensitive this subject is in Bournemouth and other town centres, given the feeling that crime and disorder on our streets, particularly in the early hours of the morning, has been exacerbated by the Government's mistakes on licensing legislation, I am not prepared to risk dividing the House, opposing this procedural motion and seeing my opposition misrepresented as support for people who cause disruption in our town centres. It is a pity that the Government did not get their tackle in order earlier and put right what is obviously wrong, but I suppose that the measure is better late than never.

Alan Campbell: This has been a very lively and useful debate, with significant contributions from those in all parts of the House. It is the first time that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) seems to have worried about detaining Members, and the first time that I have heard him decry or not take up the opportunity to take an independent stance, even if that means offending his Whips. Occasionally, contributors have strayed towards the substance of the issue, but the motion is about extending the scope of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I should just like to put on the record that I have not discussed my views on the matter with the Whips. I have made an independent judgment of what I want to do, and whether it be right or wrong, it is my independent judgment.

Alan Campbell: I am sure that we are grateful for that, and the independent judgment appears to be not to vote against the measure.
	I am grateful for the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who reminded us of the important work of the Home Affairs Committee. I am grateful also for his supportive comments about the proposal if not the process, and I, too, hope that he has the opportunity to discuss these important matters at the appropriate time.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) rehearsed many of the arguments that I suspect we will hear from him in Committee and beyond, and he asked about the urgency, to which I shall refer specifically in a moment. The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), who is not in his place, asked for time to consider these matters in Committee. It was made clear that the Committee already has a number of issues to consider, so the Committee's time for deliberation has been extended, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch for acknowledging that. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) complained about the extension of the Bill, but, whoever the Government in power, it is not unusual for them to extend the measures that are debated in Committee, which then, ultimately, find themselves in a Bill. The difference on this occasion is that the proposals would widen the scope of the Bill, and the motion has been tabled because we need to consider carefully whether that is right.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch asked about urgency. When we make policy on tackling alcohol-related crime and many other things, it is part of a continuum. We are constantly looking at the need for new legislation, at how it works when it beds down and at the next step. Alcohol-related disorder is a good example of why we need to be on the front foot, because the 2008 review of the Licensing Act 2003 found a mixed picture throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, during the passage of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, we brought forward measures on, for example, the mandatory code, but, without straying into the substance of the Bill, I must say that our proposals will address the situation in a minority of areas where the balance is not correct. We continue to work with licensing authorities, and we seek to deal with individual premises, but it is part of a continuum.

Peter Bone: He's going into the substance.

Alan Campbell: Yes, I-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is already starting to stray. Perhaps he will now come back into line.

Alan Campbell: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	When one has alighted on a particular set of proposals, they must be proportionate-the House would be aghast if they were not-and that takes a period of deliberation. One does not always alight on a particular measure at an appropriate time. Sometimes, however, legislative measures are brought forward that provide the opportunity for those measures to be discussed, debated and then voted on. Getting the balance between the necessary urgency as regards such a subject and a proportionate response means that things are not always lined up at the same time.
	This Bill is an important vehicle to do with crime and disorder. In order to ensure that its provisions are balanced and proportionate, it was, unfortunately, not possible to bring forward these measures when it was debated on Second Reading. That is why we require this process, which is, admittedly, unusual. I stress that what we are debating today is giving power to local authorities that will then be dependent on regulations brought forward at a later date.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not what we are debating today-we are debating an instruction to the Committee.

Alan Campbell: Then let me say that there will be opportunities for further debate during later stages of the proceedings on the Bill, whether in Committee, in the remaining stages, or in another place; and subsequent to that if the proposals are accepted. I regard this as the start of a debate, not the conclusion. We are proposing an important and timely additional measure. I commend the motion to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That it be an instruction to the Crime and Security Bill Committee that it has power to make provisions in the Bill to enable restrictions to be placed on the hours during which alcohol may be sold or supplied.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 11 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 1186(6)),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 5 January, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Personal Accounts Delivery Authority Winding Up Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

Data Protection

That the draft Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

Animal Welfare

That the draft Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.

Financial Services and Markets

That the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2010 (S.I., 2010, No. 86), dated 19 January 2010, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved. -(Lyn Brown.)
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Future Relations between the EU and the Overseas Countries and Territories

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15647/09, a Commission Communication on Elements for a new partnership between the EU and the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs); recalls that such Communications are consultation documents and are not legally binding; and welcomes the Commission Communication as a continuation of the process of the renegotiation of the Overseas Association Decision. -(Lyn Brown.)
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Road Repairs (Northamptonshire)

Peter Bone: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to present a public petition that should have been presented last night, but was not. That is entirely due to a mistake by me, and not in any way by the Table Office or the Chair. I apologise to the Chair for that.
	Dr. Collier, one of my constituents, has single-handedly collected 1,000 signatures about the state of the roads in Rushden. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will read out the petition, because it entirely explains the situation. The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of members of Rushden, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
	Sheweth,
	That the roads of Rushden are in a poor state and are desperately in need of repair; there are many potholes and these cause a hazard to drivers and pedestrians; they are dangerous for the vulnerable who have to cross the roads and risk causing much damage to vehicles and costing constituents large amounts of money during the recession; the roads are in a very bad condition and cannot cope with the current local population; action needs to be taken if they are to be able to cope with the planned expansion of north Northamptonshire.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to direct Northamptonshire County Council to take remedial action to repair the roads, thereby improving the situation for local residents.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c.
	[P000731]

YARL'S WOOD IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Lyn Brown.)

Alistair Burt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise matters relating to Yarl's Wood detention and removal centre. As I am sure the House is aware, it is the largest immigration detention centre for women and children in the United Kingdom and is located in my constituency.
	I sought this debate before a protest began at Yarl's Wood last week, a hunger strike that became rather more serious on Monday. However, a number of the matters at the heart of the protest are pertinent to the remarks that I shall make. It is fortunate that we have a little more time than we normally would for an Adjournment debate, and I acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall), who has always taken a keen interest in the centre.
	I shall briefly give some history of the centre, because it is pertinent. Some of the problems inherent at the outset of Yarl's Wood still bedevil it and the system that it symbolises. It was built on a deceit. Terrified by the rise in the number of asylum applications resulting from changes in policy in 1997, the Government needed to react to growing public concern prior to the general election of 2001. The then Home Secretary plucked a figure for removals out of the air, and Yarl's Wood was built to accommodate that fictitious figure and the attempts that followed to remove people from the UK as part of the process.
	The centre was appallingly built, without adequate fire precautions, and on Valentine's day 2002, following a disturbance started by former prisoners who should not have been there, half the centre burned down, risking more than 300 lives. The insurance claim disgracefully launched against Bedfordshire police has not yet been settled, eight years after the event.
	If the Minister or the House believe that I have made a somewhat prejudiced and partial opening, they should read the excellent report by Mr. Stephen Shaw, the then prisons ombudsman, following his inquiry into the circumstances of the fire. I doubt that he would take issue with anything that I have just said.
	The relevance of that history today is that something built upon sand may never recover from its poor foundations. The problems of the backlog in the system that resulted from the early policy changes of the current Government have never been adequately dealt with, and they still bedevil the system today. Similarly, Yarl's Wood's reputation from its opening days has rather unfairly lasted to this day. Perhaps I can deal with that first, as there is much concern and some misunderstanding about what happens there among groups outside Yarl's Wood who care deeply about detainees.
	In April 2007, Serco took over the contract to run Yarl's Wood from Group 4. Since then it has made a number of changes that have markedly improved the atmosphere at the centre. It can never be a happy place, as it contains women and children who have come to the end of their attempts to move to, and live in, the United Kingdom. The vast majority know that at some stage, they will be required to leave. Many do not wish to do so, and that understandably makes for a difficult atmosphere in the centre.
	However, Yarl's Wood is not a prison, and it is not run like one. The staff, a number of whom are my constituents, have to manage a balance between ensuring that the place is secure-people are there because there was a fear that they might abscond-and recognising that the majority have committed no criminal offence and should not be treated as prisoners.
	The original Yarl's Wood regime tended more towards a prison regime, partly because of the haste in which the centre was built and the circumstances that I described earlier, and partly through a lack of thought as to what it was really about. However, through the patient work of both Group 4 and Serco, the atmosphere has changed. Internal doors have been taken down and there is much more free association among those who are detained. Facilities for education and recreation have steadily improved. The uniform of officers has changed, and the ratio of women to men officers has changed for the better and is more appropriate to the large number of women detainees. Internet access, for which I have repeatedly asked over the years, was finally installed in June 2007, and efforts have been made to improve access to external support organisations.
	Those efforts have been helped by the repeated work of many people. The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, has taken a particular interest in Yarl's Wood and her comments have helped to improve the situation. The Children's Commissioner has raised the issue. There has been sterling work by two local bodies, the independent monitoring board and the Yarl's Wood befrienders. I thank the chair of the independent monitoring board, Jane Leech, and all its members, for their work. Those volunteers are regularly at Yarl's Wood to observe what happens there and to be available to people. The befrienders are not a statutory body but often from a faith base, and they take care of detainees on a personal basis, particularly those who may have no one else to turn to. The involvement of both groups, which are staffed locally by volunteers from my constituency, is important and necessary. Yarl's Wood is not perfect, but not to recognise the efforts that have been made to improve the regime over the years would be unfair to those who work there, the Home Office, and others who try so hard to make things better in difficult circumstances.
	However, last Thursday, a protest began at Yarl's Wood. It was partly about conditions, but more specifically about the asylum process and the length of time that some detainees are held. Over the weekend, the protest escalated, until on Monday, four detainees were isolated as alleged instigators. In response, a group of some 70 women peacefully occupied a corridor known as the avenue. At some stage in the afternoon, a group of women broke out of the corridor into a yard outside by climbing through windows.
	I have spoken to Serco officials, the chair of the independent monitoring board, Jane Leech, and to Chief Constable Gillian Parker, who was kept abreast of the situation even though police did not need to enter the premises, for their accounts of the incident. I understand that Yarl's Wood staff contained the protest, both outside in the yard and in the corridor, and that it gradually came to a peaceful conclusion. That must be the first responsibility-the welfare and safety of detainees and staff. Women held in the corridor were not allowed access to food, water or toilet facilities during the protest. Those were available if they left the corridor and therefore the protest, but they were not allowed to rejoin.
	I understand that there were no serious injuries, nor any serious physical confrontation between staff and detainees, but that account is not entirely accepted by some groups outside Yarl's Wood who supported the protest and the women involved, and who have e-mailed me. I should make it clear that I do not support hunger strikes, which damage the welfare of individual detainees, nor protests that risk the health and welfare of staff or detainees. Having said that, it is essential, for the integrity of the asylum and detention process, and for the staff and detainees involved, that what happens in such situations is verified, and that that verification is available externally.
	Therefore, will the Minister confirm that CCTV coverage was available for all areas involved in the protest on Monday? Will there be an independent inquiry, or at least a report, into what happened and the circumstances, and how it was dealt with and contained, possibly through the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers? Will the CCTV coverage be available to her?
	Can the Minister say what happened to the four women detainees who were allegedly held without access to facilities for most of the day, and who have now been dispersed to other centres? I understand that they were taken to the reception area and held there during the day, and that they were moved later, but what precisely was their condition during the day and who was looking after them? Were any injuries received by either staff or detainees? How were such injuries treated and were medical staff available at all times?
	As I indicated, I sought this debate before that incident, and I want to cover some of the origins of the frustration that led to the protest.

Patrick Hall: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the issues that he intended originally to raise, it is my understanding, like his, that the protest of recent days was directed principally at the nature of the detention system. This is not the occasion to address those matters. None the less, does he agree that they need to be carefully debated at some point?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right-the nature of the detention system and Yarl's Wood have a tangential relationship. From what I understand-I have not spoken to any detainees, although I have heard representations from those who have-the protest was directed partly at Yarl's Wood, but essentially at the asylum and detention process. However, we need to address some of those frustrations, because Yarl's Wood is the end of the process. As I have remarked frequently in debates such as this, the policy is decided by the Home Office and executed by the UK Border Agency, but the people left holding the parcel at the end are the staff at Yarl's Wood. They have to deal with any frustrations caused by the system, although they are not responsible for policy and cannot make many decisions about individual detainee cases. Therefore, when the frustrations boil over as they did in this instance-although fortunately not to any great extent-the staff have to deal with that. Addressing those frustrations will therefore, in time, ease the situation at Yarl's Wood.
	There is much frustration about the failures of the asylum process to deal speedily and effectively with cases. Only yesterday the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Ann Abraham, reported on the UK Border Agency, as I am sure the House already knows. Among other things, she said that the agency still has a long way to go to ensure that its administration, complaints-handling procedures and remedy mechanisms are adequate. She spoke of the hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases not yet dealt with. She said that there was a risk for the agency of
	a loss of faith in their system by applicants, by other related organisations, and by the public at large.
	I am sure that many hon. Members could give examples of long-running asylum cases. I had two new cases in the last week, one involving a Zimbabwean woman who applied in 2002 and still, eight years later, has not had a determination. The House will be aware that those who have been turned down for asylum face many restrictions on working and benefit claims. These are not just statistics. They represent people who are trying to get on with their lives while the process of determining their status goes on. Length of time does not give them any greater right in theory, but it makes a profound difference to the life that they want-and are trying-to live.
	Some of the women detained at Yarl's Wood lived in their communities for many years before being taken to the centre for removal. They have effectively become settled in the UK. It is not that they have acquired a right to remain here: it is that the delay in the process makes the process of deportation so much harder, difficult to enforce and potentially unjust. They have relationships and jobs and, above all, a fear of a country that they may have left many years before in difficult circumstances. They now have to face the prospect of returning to it. When does the Minister believe that her Department will properly get a grip on the backlog of cases and deal with some of the frustrations so evident at Yarl's Wood?
	In a statement on the events of the weekend and on the situation in general, Caroline Slocock, the chief executive of Refugee and Migrant Justice, said:
	The disturbances at Yarl's Wood again highlight the injustice of indefinite immigration detention in this country. Some of the women in Yarl's Wood have been held for many months and simply don't know when they will be released or removed.
	The most recent figures for detention that I have are from the independent monitoring board's report from last year, and they are the figures for 2008. They show that 347 women were detained for between 30 and 59 days, 137 for between 60 and 89 days, 75 for between 90 and 119 days, 121 for between 120 and 364 days and eight for more than a year. I remind the House that Yarl's Wood is a short-term centre. It is designed for people to be there for a short period of time before they are deported. It was not designed to have a substantial number of women there for much longer than three to six months.
	I am aware that there are many reasons why detainees will be at Yarl's Wood longer than anticipated, and some are beyond the ability of the Department to deal with-such as when a country refuses to accept a national back-but this poses a question. How long should women be detained if there is no certainty of them being deported? How long can an order be granted again and again to hold someone in such uncertain circumstances? If there is no prospect of returning someone rapidly, why is there not an alternative system of reporting and being handled, as opposed to being deprived of liberty?
	Those circumstances are even more serious when it comes to children. I note that one or two other colleagues have just entered the Chamber. The situation of children in detention has exercised the House on more than one occasion-hon. Members hold strong feelings about that issue. The 2009 IMB report gives the figures for 2008: a total of 1,271 children left detention that year, of whom 262 were detained for between eight and 14 days; 87 for between 15 and 21 days; 74 for between 22 and 28 days; and 232 for more than 28 days. The Children's Society says that the children they tend to be involved with experience an average stay of about six weeks.
	Given that I am talking about figures, I should say in passing that the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) sent me a copy of the Home Affairs Committee's report on the detention of children in the immigration system. I have just given the Minister the statistics for 2008, but the right hon. Gentleman wrote:
	We have been unable to discover how many individual families with children have been detained in the last year. That such figures are not readily available is troubling. In future, Government statistics should be more informative and state how many separate individuals have been detained, not merely how many people have passed through detention.
	I leave that with the Minister. Many people have been exercised by the process.

Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman will have seen, therefore, that the Home Affairs Committee said, among a number of other comments and recommendations, that it regards detention as the final step in the process and that it should not be indeterminate pending legal proceedings. Does he agree that detainees will do all that they can to remain, including using the legal process, and that sometimes they themselves lengthen the period of their detention by seeking legal process? Should we not, therefore, be looking for means of dealing with people going through the legal processes outside detention and in the community, and only detain when the legal processes are truly concluded?

Alistair Burt: Yes, there is much in what the hon. Gentleman says. First, of course those detained will often do everything that they can to seek to remain, and if they have families with them, inevitably that will lengthen their time in a detention centre. Secondly, as he said, alternatives might therefore be sought. However, I will come to that later. I know that alternatives have been piloted and that there is much to be done there.
	I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman would share with me the central principle that was well put in a briefing from the Refugee Council, with which I did a session on this issue during the party conference last year. It produced two relevant quotes about the detention of children. First, in December 2009, a briefing paper entitled Significant Harm, which was published by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, recommended that the practice of detaining children cease without delay.
	Anne Owers, in her February 2008 inspection report, wrote:
	The plight of detained children remained of great concern. While child welfare services had improved, an immigration removal centre can never be a suitable place for children and we were dismayed to find cases of disabled children being detained and some children spending large amounts of time incarcerated. We were concerned about ineffective and inaccurate monitoring of length of detention in this extremely important area. Any period of detention can be detrimental to children and their families, but the impact of lengthy detention is particularly extreme.
	The IMB report made the following pertinent comment:
	The IMB acknowledges the dedication, kindness and patience of staff involved in the care of children and families at Yarl's Wood. However, we remain extremely concerned about the detention of children. We highlight, inter alia, the length of detention, late night and early morning movements and the disruption to older children's education.
	I echo the comments made by the IMB, because the issue is not just what happens at the centre. The trained staff who work there especially with children do the best that they can. They have to cope with a fluctuating population and great age differences, and they have to deal with children in the situation in which they have arrived. We have met children who were in school for long periods, but who were taken out shortly before examinations and therefore unable to complete them. They are completely disorientated: they have lost friends and loved ones, and have no certainty about what will happen to them. All that has to be taken into account in how those children are dealt with. This is not the time or place to go into how the UK Border Agency handles some of those issues of movement-they tell their own story. I simply quote the statistics for how long some children are there and the impact that that has to impress on the Minister my next point, which is that we have to work even harder for alternatives to detention for children.

Diane Abbott: On the point about children in detention, I visited Yarl's Wood, and although the staff are dedicated, the conditions are not those in which one would want one's own child kept. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that children are being kept at Yarl's Wood for much longer than MPs were initially assured they would be?

Alistair Burt: Yes, and indeed they are. That remains one of the problems of the system that we are dealing with. When Yarl's Wood was built, the original intention was to hold people for a short period before they moved out. Originally children were not there at all. They were added relatively recently, and I am sure that the decision was taken that they should be there for very short periods. I do not know whether the Minister has the figures this evening, but during the day I asked her office for the numbers of children who have been held over the past couple of years for longer than six months, nine months and 12 months, and how many were held, for example, over last Christmas.
	The argument that the House would make to the Minister is this. Recognising all the difficulties and the pressure outside, she should tell us more about the alternatives and the pilots for dealing with those children differently. That is what I want briefly to touch on now. I am aware of the experiment that has been conducted-the Millbank alternative-and of the differing opinions on the success of that experiment. The official line was to say that it had not been a success and that it did not reduce the number of people absconding. However, a report produced by the Children's Society, the Princess of Wales Memorial Fund and Bail for Immigration Detainees looked into some of the drawbacks of that pilot and some things that might have been done better. Those groups think that the pilot was too short and that the referral criteria were unclear. Case owners-those looking after cases for the UK Border Agency-had a disincentive to refer families to the pilot. Families were not given enough time to explore the possibility of return.
	The consensus view is that there were deficiencies in the pilot. It would therefore be wrong just to dismiss it and not have another go. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about the new pilot that is under way-it started in Scotland last year-because it is on such pilots that we pin many of our hopes. There is an understandable horror at seeing children behind bars. We know why it is difficult for the UK Border Agency to deal with families with children-we all understand that-but there has to be a better alternative.
	I would like to use this opportunity to say that, quite rightly, facilities at Yarl's Wood have improved markedly. The new little school built inside the centre is terrific; or it would be if it did not lead out to closed doors and the centre itself. If the school were in the middle of one of my lovely Bedfordshire fields, it would be marvellous.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for missing the start of this Adjournment debate, but I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue. The Select Committee on Home Affairs visited the school, although there were no children in it when we were there. Our concern is that the school dealt only with very young children. Children who were not of school age were at the centre and they could not be taught and had nothing to do. If we are looking at short-term facilities, the school is something that should be provided. However, Yarl's Wood remains essentially a prison.

Alistair Burt: Difficulties are involved in dealing with such a wide range of children. The staff do not know who is going to be there, and the children do not know how long they will be staying. Their taking any kind of formal course is almost impossible in the circumstances. We are really talking about child minding, and giving them something to take their minds off where they are. Children are children, and we can see them playing and doing the best they can in the circumstances, but they know where they are. They can feel their parents' distress, and none of us can take that away.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and for the sensitive way in which he has taken up the issue of Yarl's Wood. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I have visited the centre. In his estimation, what is the long-term psychological effect on children who have spent any amount of time in what he correctly describes as prison conditions? It is totally wrong for any child to be kept in such conditions for any length of time.

Alistair Burt: From the professional opinions that I have read-including those of general practitioners and those involved in psychology and health-these conditions almost always produce an impact for the bad. Children have varying degrees of resilience, but detention has an impact on all of them, and the longer the detention, the more difficult this becomes.
	The Minister will know that it is not a question of these children being held for a period of time then all automatically leaving the country. Many of them are returned to the communities from which they came, because of a change in the way in which their case is looked at. With what degree of certainty can they go back to their former lives? They will always be wondering when the Benefits Agency will come knocking on the door at 6 o'clock in the morning to take them away again. I am sorry to put it that way, but it is true. Early morning removals are, as the Minister knows, part of the practice of the Benefits Agency, unless things have changed recently. Understandably, that also adds an element of fear.
	I shall return to these points briefly at the end of my speech when I acknowledge the difficulties involved, but I shall leave them with the Minister for the moment. I want briefly to mention two further issues. The first involves ex-foreign national prisoners. There is a mixture of women detainees at Yarl's Wood, many of whom have had no contact whatever with the criminal process. They are purely asylum seekers who have been detained. Some, however, have been in prison and are being held at Yarl's Wood before being returned to other countries.
	This poses a particular problem. Those women might have been held in prison for some time before being taken to the centre for an indefinite period. They also have complex lives. They might have partners outside, and they might have been separated from their children while they were in prison. They are now being separated from them again while they are in the centre. Some would say that criminal cases should be looked at quite differently, and I can understand that, but the same frustrations can arise. If their cases are not dealt with swiftly, further damage can be done. It is important to look at that particular category of case.
	I also want to mention health issues. I want to pick out a further quote from the latest report by the independent monitoring board, if I may. I have some time, so I shall give the House a couple of examples. The 2009 report stated:
	Another example is that of a child with sickle cell anaemia, who had a letter from his specialist explaining that his mobility was severely limited by pain. His mother was engaged in a dispute with Healthcare-
	at the centre-
	as to whether he should have to attend the clinic to take his painkillers, rather than have them brought to the residential unit. Leaving aside the question of whether a child with such a serious condition should have been detained, we felt that this dispute should not have been permitted to arise and, further, that it illustrated a scepticism which has a detrimental effect on patient care.
	The report also states:
	A...more general consequence is the existence, as we see it, of a culture of scepticism about detainees' medical conditions. A detainee who had suffered a stroke whilst in prison was brought to Yarl's Wood at the end of her sentence in July 2008. There was a degree of doubt, particularly on the part of UKBA at the port, about the extent of her disability, with the result that there was some delay in providing the necessary equipment and services for her care. The need for physiotherapy was not recorded by Healthcare until two weeks after her arrival and did not start, as we understand it, owing to issues over funding, until more than one month after her arrival. Officers and UKBA staff locally did their best to care for her and to source the necessary equipment, but were confronted with scepticism about her condition, and with disputes between the relevant authorities over funding.
	On a number of occasions, I have raised the issue of the independence of the health care offered at Yarl's Wood. The contractors-either Group 4 or Serco-have the responsibility to commission the health care, but I think that is wrong because the independence of the health care is inevitably compromised. Wishing no ill will on anyone involved, it looks difficult. Circumstances often arise where there is a dispute over the condition of the detainee between the contractor's health care officer and another specialist or other doctors outside.
	Yarl's Wood exists to enable people to leave the country. If there is an issue about fitness to travel and the decision is made by a contracted company inside Yarl's Wood, what chance is there of having confidence that it has not been influenced by the contract given to the contractors to get people out of the country? It puts the medical staff in a compromised position. As on Monday, there is a dispute between those outside Yarl's Wood, who have heard reports from detainees about what happened, and those inside as to whether anyone was injured and whether any medical assistance was available-it is all run by Serco. I have little doubt that what I am told by Serco is the truth, but there are others who will be more sceptical than me. A degree of independence in respect of the health care provided at Yarl's Wood is now necessary. That would happen if the contract were not given to Serco, but to the NHS and the local primary care trust. Then we would have the necessary degree of independence and it would cover children, as well as HIV treatment when people with HIV have to leave the country. I believe it would be safer for the medical staff, for detainees, for Serco, for the Government and for everyone if such a degree of independence were there.
	Finally-I appreciate the House's indulgence; I was fortunate to have this amount of time for my Adjournment debate-I have not mentioned fast-track; I have not mentioned escort services to and from Heathrow; and I have not mentioned the continuing presence of rogue legal advisers who fleece the most vulnerable and take money from the rest of us by the way in which they handle cases. I could have mentioned a variety of other things. Yarl's Wood comprises a mixture of women with different histories, and the public may feel more sympathy for some than others. I am afraid that there is an alarming tendency in modern Britain to judge all in Yarl's Wood as being the same, and for that judgment to be harsh.
	I pay tribute to those who work with detainees: the independent monitoring board, the befrienders, and even some outside groups whose political views I do not share, as they would say no to borders and have no immigration controls. I pay tribute to them for their interest in, and care for, those who would otherwise lack a voice. A society that rightly protects its borders and that may need to detain and deport has a clear obligation to act justly, fairly and transparently to those involved and to hear the voices of those under lock and key-above all, those of the innocent children caught up in matters beyond their comprehension, which may mark them for ever.
	None of these issues are easy; none of the problems on the Minister's desk are capable of an easy solution. It may be that the legacy of all we have spoken about passes shortly from the Minister's side of the House to mine-and the problems will still be there. I feel that although Yarl's Wood has come a long way, two or three more changes might make a difference. I would be grateful if we could start with a clear decision on health care. I would also be grateful if the Minister enlightened us about how the pilot projects with children are going and I would like to hear how she reacts to some of the issues that have been raised in frustration by detainees. For the benefit of all of us, the safe and secure immigration system that we all need demands clear and straightforward justice for those involved. There are still problems in the system that badly need dealing with. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Patrick Hall: I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing it. I agreed with all the substantive points he made, particularly about the need for independence on health care, preferably through the national health service. In the interests of fairness and balance, I would like to pick up on one point that the hon. Gentleman raised at the beginning of his contribution: the huge backlogs in the asylum system were growing in 1997 when Labour came to power; they were not invented by this Government.
	The Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre is located about 4 miles from Bedford, so for a number of reasons I have a constituency interest in the subject, to which the hon. Gentleman has already alluded.
	In my short speech, I shall focus on the detention of children. Increasing concern has been expressed about that by a number of organisations, including all the children's charities. In 2008, Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons, drew attention to the negative impact of lengthy detention on children's well-being, and more recently the Children's Commissioner made some hard-hitting remarks. Last November the Home Affairs Committee said that detention should be short, and a last resort. Public awareness has also been boosted by Juliet Stevenson's Motherland. I was pleased that, at my instigation, it was performed in Bedford last month to a packed Civic theatre.

Alistair Burt: I am sorry-I forgot to mention that, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done so. It was an extraordinary production. Juliet Stevenson and her colleagues presented a series of stories of children who had been caught up in detention, excellently and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, to a packed theatre.

Patrick Hall: Along with others, the hon. Gentleman and I engaged in a question-and-answer and discussion session after the performance.
	Under the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the UK Border Agency must conduct its work in a manner that upholds the welfare of children. That means, to me, reducing detention and developing community alternatives to it. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister expressing my view that, in an ideal world, families with children would not be detained at all. I accept that in some exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to detain them just before removal, but only because it is in the interests of children not to be put into care and therefore preferable for them to remain with their parents.
	I realise that my hon. Friend, and indeed any Minister dealing with such matters, has an extremely difficult job to do. Immigration control, let alone detention, is extremely challenging. It is in that spirit of understanding that I have asked the Minister to meet me-along with, I hope, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire-to discuss how the detention of children might be significantly reduced.

John McDonnell: The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) paid tribute to a number of organisations and individuals. Let me now pay tribute to him for the way in which he has consistently addressed this issue and widened it so that it has become more than just a constituency matter.
	I want to discuss, very briefly, what has happened over the past week. There are two detention centres in my constituency, Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. There have been two riots at Harmondsworth in recent years. As some Members will recall, on both occasions there were fires, and on one occasion the centre was burnt down and had to be evacuated.
	According to reports that I have read about the demonstration that took place over the weekend, there was some rough handling, and people were denied water and food. Regardless of whether such action is taken because people are in a particular location, I consider it inappropriate. That is why we are calling for an independent inquiry, and I urge the Minister to commission it as rapidly as possible. I agree that it could be based not just on witness statements, but on the closed-circuit television recordings that might be available. I say that because after the first riot at Harmondsworth a number of lessons were not learnt, or not learnt speedily enough, which led to a second riot that posed even more danger to both staff and detainees.
	I would welcome the announcement of such an inquiry-conducted by Anne Owers or by someone else-and of a time scale for its report. I also echo the request for information on what has happened to the four detainees who were moved during the hunger strike. I should like to know what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken against them, and whether it has had any impact on their case.
	Harmondsworth used to house children. I have visited it regularly over the years, from when it was a row of huts. It was then turned into a semi-prison housing 400, and now there is Colnbrook as well, on a similar scale. We have heard in our debate about the effects that detention has on children, and there have been studies that have shown the long-term emotional impact of even a brief spell of detention, but, as has been said, the figures demonstrate that children are being held for much longer than anyone promised. Even a matter of months is an enormously long period in a child's life, and will have a significantly deleterious effect on their well-being.
	I remember visiting Harmondsworth when there were children there. I remember in particular an occasion when the children did a project on what freedom meant to them, and I will never forget one of the statements from the children, which was that freedom is the sand outside the gates that they could look through. That has always stayed with me. No matter how caring the staff, the fact that these children are locked up-in effect, imprisoned-not only shames us as a society, but has drastic effects on their futures.
	That is why, in principle, I do not believe we should be locking up children at all. I do not believe that is justified, and I believe that in a civilised society we should be able to find alternative means. Even I am critical of the pilots that have been developed, because they still have an element of intimidatory behaviour towards young people. At some time in the future, I would welcome a wider debate about the principle of the detention of children who have done nothing wrong. In fact, even the parents themselves are not criminals; they have not committed any crime, as such. In no other area of law do we detain children simply because they are with their parents. There must be alternative solutions that we can bring forward.
	I also believe that we detain people in far greater numbers than is reasonable. Many of us have dealt with individual cases. They might involve people going to Yarl's Wood and then down to Harmondsworth, and then on to the airport and then back again, as people are dragged through a tortuous legal system. Most such cases involve people who, in the first instance, simply want to live in a country where their human rights are not abused and where they are not under threat of physical violence. In addition, most of them probably simply want to work-they simply want to earn an income that gives them a standard of living that lifts them out of poverty. That should be welcomed, rather than penalised by dragging them through the processes of the courts and then on to deportation.

Patrick Hall: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that attempts to obtain information about allegations of incidents that take place during episodes of transportation are sometimes withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality?

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend is right. It is extremely difficult to find out information on any of these cases when they are in transit. When dealing with individual cases, we often find, certainly in respect of Harmondsworth, that people are moved around the system and it is then very difficult to track them. My hon. Friend is right that commercial confidentiality has been used, and I must say that that is a result of the privatisation of the overall system, which I abhor.
	First, I would like an inquiry to be conducted as a matter of urgency, and I would welcome information on that tonight, if possible. Secondly, I ask the Government to review the whole concept of detaining children. Thirdly, I ask the Government to review the scale of detention in this country, which we use against people whom I believe should be allowed to settle and contribute to our society.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing it.
	People in detention centres do not have a vote and there are no votes to be won by paying attention to what happens in detention centres. Whether we are willing to debate seriously and pay attention to the conditions of people who are not citizens or voters is a test of this House and a test of our humanity.
	I do not have a constituency interest in that I do not have a detention centre in my constituency, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, and like some of my other hon. Friends, I deal with a huge volume of immigration casework.
	Over the years, I have come to focus on what goes on at detention centres. I have visited Oakington and Yarl's Wood. Of course, one has to pay tribute to the staff working in them, but I have been in the House long enough to remember when the centres were set up and the assurances that MPs were given, which can be found in  Hansard, that people would be held there briefly on their way to being transported out of the country. Issues that were raised then about the regime were brushed aside on the basis that people would be in the centres only for short periods.
	As time has gone on, we have seen people being held for longer and longer. I believe that had MPs known when the idea first came before the House the length of time for which people would be held in the centres-and, in particular, the length of time for which children would be held there-MPs would have offered much more opposition to that proposal than they did at the time.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire touched on the issue of health care in detention centres. That is very important. One of the constant complaints one hears when one visits those detention centres and meets the voluntary groups that work with them concerns health issues and health care. It seems a simple step forward to allow the health care to be provided, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, quite independently of the private contractor that runs the detention centre so that there is no question of a conflict of interest or of costs being shaved. That would mean that detainees and their children could have absolute psychological confidence in the health care they were being offered.

Alistair Burt: I should have mentioned this in my remarks. Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the prime drivers for that is the fact that a number of women detainees come from backgrounds of violence, rape and torture and that there is often a dispute of opinion about what their background has been? The medical staff involved at Yarl's Wood or another centre might be compromised in their judgment of that background. In such circumstances, an independent element is vital.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to make that point. There is often a dispute concerning women detainees and issues of rape and past sexual violence. If the women detainees are dependent on a health care service that is commissioned by the private contractor, they will not feel confident, rightly or wrongly, in the health advice that they are given. I have had issues raised with me about the treatment available at detention centres for tuberculosis or HIV. Some detainees and advisers feel that they are not getting the best possible treatment because of attempts to cut costs or effort. I do not know whether that is true, but if the health care was independently provided the detainees and the people who help and support them would have more confidence in the system.
	On the question of children in detention, as I have said, I have visited both Yarl's Wood and Oakington. When one looks at the little school and talks to the people who help with the children, one cannot help but leave impressed by their care and concern. There is a school there, and toys and facilities, but they are all behind walls and gates. To all intents and purposes, a young child in Yarl's Wood is in prison. How can they understand it when they are being kept there for months?
	I know that the Minister is a mother. She will have a brief from her officials and she will talk to us about immigration control, but I ask her to imagine that it was her children behind bars. Are these the conditions that she would want for them? They would not be able to run completely free as far as they like, or to go into town to see Father Christmas, or to go into town to meet their friends. Are those the conditions that anyone would want for their child? Not for three months, not for two months, not for a month-not even for a day.
	These children and their parents have committed no crime. They might be a threat to efficient immigration control, but they have committed no crime. Should they be kept in conditions that we would not want our children kept in for 24 hours? I repeat that when the House originally debated setting up the detention centres, it had no idea that children would be kept in them for the lengths of time that they are.
	Time and again, not only committed campaigners-I have the utmost respect for the committed campaigners with whom I and other hon. Members have worked-but people such as Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons, have voiced their concerns about holding children in such conditions. I have seen reports that officials whom I have met will certainly have seen, which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire might also have seen, about psychiatric examinations of children. The people who examine and talk to those children elicit from them the stress and trauma that being transported to and held in detention centres has caused them. For people who have not read such reports, there is the remarkable production by Juliet Stevenson, which vividly brought home to many people who heard it on the radio or went to see it live what it means to children to be held in those conditions and to be taken away from their communities, school friends and schools to what is for them a prison for reasons that they do not understand.
	Ministers must remember that the detention of such children is a phenomenon that has emerged without Parliament ever having explicitly said that that is what it wanted to happen. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that we should not keep in detention children who have committed no crime and whose parents have committed no crime. Time and again, people have said that that practice puts us in breach of the convention on the rights of the child. I cannot believe that the Government cannot, in the 21st century, find alternatives.
	I know what Ministers will say, because I have been doing immigration casework for 20-odd years. They will say that if we do not put people in detention, they will not return of their own free will, or they will cause problems. Detention at Yarl's Wood or Oakington is the end of the line in a system that, although Ministers have improved it greatly, still has too many blockages and still encourages people to feel that they can delay cases. The children whom Ministers feel forced to hold in detention are the victims of a system that still has too many delays. They are the victims of so-called immigration advisers out there who are still giving people poor advice that encourages them to hold on against all hope. Those children are the victims of what happens further up the system, but it all ends with a child who should be carefree and able to look out of the window as far as the eye can see being held behind bars in a prison for the purposes of others.
	I have been privileged to meet families who are in detention in Yarl's Wood, including children and mothers, to hear their concerns. I have been privileged to work with campaigners down the years and I have brought these issues to the House's attention in other Adjournment debates. I must say to the Government that although focus groups and opinion polls will say that no one cares if we keep children in conditions that are in breach of their human rights and that there are no votes in this issue, we should be better than that. We should work towards a situation in which no child of an immigrant, even if that immigrant is here illegally and subject to immigration control, is kept by the state in conditions that we would not tolerate for our own children.

Jeremy Corbyn: I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for the sympathetic and humanitarian way in which he introduced the debate and for the very good work that he has done to draw attention to all the problems at Yarl's Wood over a long time. It is to his credit that he has done a great deal of work on that. He and I go back a long way, of course, having been Haringey councillors together.

Diane Abbott: Ooh! Too much information.

Jeremy Corbyn: There is nothing wrong with Haringey council.
	The hon. Gentleman's humanitarian instincts are of the highest order, and I congratulate him on the way he has represented the issues concerning the detention centre and what goes with it.
	We are dealing with a fundamental issue of human rights. As hon. Members have pointed out, the detention of children is something that we would condemn unreservedly if it were happening in any other country, or under any other regime around the world. Obviously, when I hear Ministers fulminate about the detention of children in other regimes, I join them in doing so, because the detention of children is fundamentally wrong.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was right to point out that we are signatories to the European convention on human rights and to the UN convention on the rights of the child. Indeed, there is a big monument in the middle of Hyde park that proclaims how well we treat children and how good our views about their treatment around the world are. However, we cannot hold our heads high and say we support international conventions if at the same time we detain children here. That fetters our ability to criticise regimes that, in respect of human rights, behave in a way we do not support.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, I have visited Yarl's Wood. I am not here to criticise the centre's staff, because that is not the point of the debate. Nor do I wish to criticise how they work, as many of them are extremely caring and good people, but they are in an utterly impossible situation. They are given families with children to look after yet-regardless of the toys that they can offer or the activities that they undertake-the people involved are still locked up, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was absolutely right to say. The prison key system with the doors that he described is always there, which means that people are not free to move around and travel. It is right to say that we ought to be better than that, and I hope that the Minister will give us some hope about what will happen in the future.
	Another point that I hope the Minister will be able to answer when she replies to the debate has to do with the fact that people's experience of detention centres in this country is not a happy one. There have been many cases of disturbances, riots, near-riots, hunger strikes and protests. People in the centres suffer from utter boredom, and utter desolation because they do not know what is going to happen to them. The problem is especially severe for people who are faced with removal to regimes that will not accept them, because they end up staying in the centres for months on end. That is a cause of considerable concern.
	I understand that there have been further demonstrations and a hunger strike in Yarl's Wood over the past few days. I should be grateful if the Minister informed the House about the current situation, and told us what representations she has received from other organisations and agencies.

Diane Abbott: Years ago, I used to work in the prison service as an administrator. My hon. Friend has talked about unrest in detention centres, but does he agree that, just as in prison, the secret to achieving a stable regime with no unrest is to ensure that people are treated in a fair and decent way? Does recurrent unrest not point to problems with the regime?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is correct, and one only has to recall the fire that took place at Yarl's Wood, and all the disturbances that have happened there in the past. Events like that tend to repeat themselves, so we have to look very seriously at the whole principle behind detention centres and particularly at how children are detained in them. I hope that this debate will give the Minister the opportunity to tell the House what is going on, as many of us are deeply concerned. Moreover, many decent and ordinary people in this country are ashamed that this country detains children.
	My final point is that, like all colleagues in the House today, I deal with a very large amount of immigration and asylum casework. I am constantly astonished by the inability of the immigration service and Home Office officials simply to answer letters. Why can they not tell people what the state of their case is? For example, why am I expected to hand on a letter to constituent that says that an answer to an inquiry I made two years ago can be expected only at the end of 2011, at best? That is insulting to the highest degree-to the intelligence of Members and to the people concerned.
	We can hardly claim to run an efficient service if we detain large numbers of adults and children, and deny people awaiting a decision on asylum access to work, health care and benefits. If they get no opportunity to contribute to society but are able to lead only a marginalised existence, there is something badly wrong with the way the system operates. This debate at least allows us to draw attention to one of the symptoms of the problem-the detention of children in Yarl's Wood.

Meg Hillier: It is fortunate that tonight we have a little more time to debate such an important topic than we would normally have in an end-of-day Adjournment debate.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing the debate and thank him for his measured tone when discussing all the difficult issues associated with immigration and immigrant detention, and the particular issues associated with Yarl's Wood. I know that he takes a great personal interest in the centre, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall). I am proud of the way that things have improved at Yarl's Wood. I do not have as long a history with the centre as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, but we all agree that there have been major improvements, and I am pleased that he acknowledged that.
	The UK Border Agency has 11 immigration removal centres providing around 3,000 bed spaces. As the hon. Gentleman said, Yarl's Wood is the main centre for single women and families, providing 405 bed spaces, of which 284 are reserved for those who are part of the detained fast-track process-that is, people who enter the country and whose cases are dealt with quickly, increasingly within weeks or months of their arrival-and for foreign national former prisoners awaiting deportation. Although there are issues about how long that process takes, I will not deal with that today, as it is not the subject of the debate. I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the matter if he wishes, as it affects his constituency. Sixty of the rooms at Yarl's Wood, or 121 beds, are set aside for family accommodation in a dedicated unit, so they are separated from the prisoners.
	Yarl's Wood operates in accordance with the detention centre rules 2001 and the UK Border Agency's operating standards. It is monitored, as hon. Members mentioned, by the centre's independent monitoring board. As the Minister responsible since December for this area of policy, I echo the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of the board's work. As a Minister, it is helpful to have independent advice and I welcome it. The independent monitoring board has free access to all parts of the centre in order to ensure that residents are treated well. The board hears requests and complaints, and there is no attempt to stifle that. The centre is inspected by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. The most recent inspection was in November last year.
	Yarl's Wood, therefore, can hardly be called a closed place of detention. I appreciate what hon. Members said about doors being locked, but that is the nature of a detention centre. It is my intention, however, as the Minister responsible to be as open as possible about what we do there. We have nothing to hide about the way in which we treat those in our care. There may be a debate about whether we should detain families and children, but we are open about what we do. It is important to make that clear.
	In the time available, I will attempt to answer all the points raised. Let us be clear about who is at Yarl's Wood. When we talk about the detention of children, it is not children on their own. It is children with their parents. The only case where we would ever detain a child on its own would be an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, who might have arrived on a late night flight and who, for various safety reasons, would need to be held in a secure environment, rather than being released into any other facility. That would happen only in exceptional circumstances. Of course, it is not Government policy to deport children who are on their own.
	Yarl's Wood is a place where children are detained only with their parents, and at any time the parents can choose to leave on a voluntary basis. It is those who refuse to leave on a voluntary basis who are at some stage detained at Yarl's Wood. Those detained are removable people whose case has been concluded-they have reached what we would consider to be the end of the line in legal terms-foreign national prisoners awaiting deportation, or those on a fast track. Barriers, as hon. Members said, are invariably legal or related to documentation. We do not generally hold backlog cases until they are removable. I can testify to that from my constituency caseload.

Jeremy Corbyn: How many of the people held in Yarl's Wood are due for deportation, but the country concerned will not accept them back? What happens to them?

Meg Hillier: I will write to my hon. Friend with those numbers. We have issues with certain countries where documentation is difficult. I do not have the numbers to hand, but I know I can provide them and will write to him after the debate.
	One of the issues raised-I apologise that they are not in perfect order-was when children are detained and how they are detained. I want to debunk some myths about what happens. We hear talk of dawn raids, but that term is not helpful-we often hear it misused; it involves emotive language; and, in any case, we do not recognise it in practice. We carry out all visits to home addresses as sensitively as possible, and it is important that we do so, because otherwise there can be difficulties detaining children.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9( 7 )).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mrs. Hodgson.)

Meg Hillier: If a child or children are in a family group that is being detained, a member of the team will at all times be aware of them specifically, and their welfare will be that staff member's prime concern.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful for this line of discussion. Is the Minister saying that there are no early morning pick-ups of families and children? That would be quite new.

Meg Hillier: I am not saying that; I am saying that such activity would be avoided. I have pointed out that someone is always there to ensure that the child's welfare is maintained, but sometimes, to ensure that a family are together and therefore the child is not at school and detained at school, which would be worse, it is important to ensure that the parents are with the child. This is a challenging area, and I can go into some of my plans to look at other options as the Minister now responsible for the matter, but there are important issues about whether we keep children with their parents. I should not want children to be separated from their parents, and, importantly, we must recognise that as part of the issue when detaining children: the parents refuse to leave, and they should take some responsibility for the situation.
	Several hon. Members mentioned the incident at Yarl's Wood on Monday. I shall give the House some information about it and then explain the next steps that I am taking. A number of women in the centre began to refuse to eat food in the canteen over the weekend in protest at their detention. They congregated in a courtyard and corridor at lunchtime for several hours. Staff maintained open dialogue with them about their protest, and by early evening the centre returned to normality.
	The incident's handling is subject to a management review, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment or speculate on the outcome at this stage. I want to see the outcome before I consider whether any next steps are necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has given me his apologies because he has had to rush off to a constituency engagement, made a number of points. He talked about a tortuous legal system, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and I shall touch on that later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also raised the issue of people wanting to work, but that is not Government policy and we do not contemplate either an amnesty or rights to work for those who are liable to deportation. It is important that we get that straight. The people at that detention centre and anywhere else in the detention estate are there because they have refused to leave the country voluntarily. Some have turned down generous packages of support and chosen to take the detention route.
	I also contest my hon. Friend's suggestion that people are moved from one place to another to evade representation by Members-I think that is what he meant, although I was not quite clear about his point. People are not moved from one place to another except to facilitate deportation. They may be moved from Yarl's Wood to a closer centre prior to a flight, but they are not moved without reason. Commercial confidentiality relates to what we pay for contracts, not to individual detainees. There is a degree of confidentiality in respect of detainees, just as there is on any other matter in the UK Border Agency, the Home Office or any part of Government, because we must ensure that we adhere to our data protection responsibilities.
	My hon. Friend also wanted me to comment on whether there was any physical violence by staff towards detainees on Monday. I reassure him that there absolutely was not. The entire incident was witnessed by the independent monitoring board, which has raised no concerns, and captured on CCTV. Several hon. Members asked about that. The CCTV footage will be available to the IMB and management review. We have no secrets; there is nothing to hide in that respect. Let me also be clear that detainees were offered refreshment throughout. The four ringleaders are now in Colnbrook awaiting transfer to prison beds because of their disruptive behaviour.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend said that when immigration officials and other appropriate officials carry out their-I know that she deprecates the phrase-dawn raids, there is always somebody there who has the interests of the child at heart. Is she saying to the House that she is confident that these raids, with people being taken from their homes in this way, do not traumatise the children?

Meg Hillier: Clearly, any child going through this process will find it very challenging. As my hon. Friend rightly predicted I would say, the Government have certain responsibilities as regards immigration and immigration control. If she will wait to the end of my comments, I can talk to her about some of the work on alternatives that is under way. I also reiterate that parents have responsibility. As a parent myself, I have some responsibility for what my children do, what harm's way I put them into, and what situations they are in. Equally, parents who are facing detention or deportation have made a choice not to leave voluntarily; they therefore have some responsibility, and it is important to recognise that. I would not want parents to be taken away and children left behind-I would not support such a difficult situation.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Minister, who is dealing with this very sensitively, but I would not like this point to go unanswered. Some of the parents are frightened about being sent back to where they have come from, and frightened for their children, so they fight to stay; that is their judgment. However, she is somewhat painting a picture that parents are making a deliberate choice to go into detention and have their children with them as if the alternative were an easy one. I would like her to recognise that for many parents, that choice is not easy at all. That is the dilemma in which they are caught and which the system has somehow to try to deal with.

Meg Hillier: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. His final comment is the main point: the system has somehow to deal with this dilemma, but many people will choose anything rather than willingly return to a situation. That can be for all sorts of reasons, and not just because they feel in physical danger. In the end, the parents make the choices that face them, however difficult they are, so some responsibility needs to lie there.

Diane Abbott: Will the Minister give way?

Meg Hillier: I am keen to make progress, because although I have quite a lot of time, I also have to respond to quite a lot of points raised in the debate.
	As I said, we would rather not have to do this: we would much prefer that families left the UK voluntarily when the courts have upheld the decision that they must leave. Nearly as many families left the UK under the assisted voluntary returns scheme last year as were removed, so the incentive of having some money and support to resettle has had some impact. Families do not always take up our offers of financial and reintegration assistance, and in those circumstances we are left with a dilemma. Do we leave people where they are, as some of my hon. Friends would suggest, or do we seek to deport them? If we seek to deport them and they do not willingly wish to go, we find ourselves with no alternative but to use detention in order to enforce their departure-a fact acknowledged by the Home Affairs Committee in its recent report. We are considering alternatives, and I will touch on those towards the end of my remarks. That is partly why I want to make some progress. I would hate to run out of time and be unable to go into how we could consider proceeding in a way that might help to satisfy some of the concerns expressed by hon. Friends and hon. Members.
	The decision to detain a family is not lightly taken-it is a last resort, and it is intended to be only for the shortest possible period once appeal rights have been exhausted, there are no outstanding legal barriers, and a flight has been booked for a few days' time. The welfare of any child is paramount in that process, and full consideration is given to all the welfare issues given that they are going to be in a different, and more difficult, situation from that of children not in the detention centre. As we heard, there is concern about children being taken out just prior to their exams. The timing of educational examinations, where known, will be taken into account before the removal process starts.
	Although our intention is that detention will be short, lasting just a few days, unfortunately some families and their legal representatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, wait until they have been detained and given their flight details before submitting applications for judicial review. The vast majority of those applications are spurious and fall at the first hurdle. That fact is acknowledged not just by the UK Border Agency and the Home Office but by the National Audit Office and the Home Affairs Committee. That said, when removal is deferred, the decision to maintain the detention of a family is subject to a regular and rigorous control process, including ministerial review in the case of all children held for more than 28 days, a matter that I take very seriously. My two predecessor Ministers with responsibility for the matter took it very seriously as well. I call in officials to talk to them about individual cases when I have concerns. That is a serious responsibility that lies on my desk, and I recognise the human lives involved.
	I will not go further into why we detain people, because I have spoken enough about that. We have touched on the issue of documentation, and sometimes establishing nationality and identity or determining whether an individual qualifies for leave to enter the UK can take time. That is particularly true of establishing nationality, because some individuals destroy their papers and their suspected home country will not accept them.

Diane Abbott: Will my hon. Friend tell me how many children have been held for longer than 28 days? She says, and I have heard a succession of Ministers in her position say, that the parents have made a choice and that that is why their children are in detention. Can she tell me of any other area of public policy in which we make children suffer because of the choices of their parents? The role of the state is normally to protect children from bad choices that their parents make.

Meg Hillier: I will provide figures in a little while about the number of children detained for different periods, but there are many areas in which children suffer because of the choices of their parents, such as when a parent is in a domestic prison. I have spoken to head teachers in my constituency who have known children who have come home from school to find that Dad or Mum has been in prison, which affects them massively. There are other matters on which children are affected by the decisions of their parents, and we do need to detain people on certain grounds.
	Statistics were mentioned in the debate, and I wish to make it clear that what we provided in the IMB report was management information. Under the rules that now govern the release of Government statistics, we are unable to release figures unless they have been agreed by the Office for National Statistics, and we need to be careful about how we present them. I will therefore be careful with the information that I am about to present in response to my hon. Friend's question about the number of children in detention.
	In the last quarter of 2009, 315 children entered detention. In the financial year 2008-09, 1,116 children entered detention and slightly more departed it-clearly some cases would have been in both financial years. Some 539 of those children, slightly fewer than half, were removed, and 629 were released. I should put it on record that those statistics are based on management information and are not subject to the detailed checks that apply to the publication of national statistics. They may include some double counting, as some children may have been detained, released and detained again. The average length of detention was 16 days in 2008-09, and for this year, 2009-10, it is slightly less so far. Of the children detained on 30 September 2009, 25 had been detained for seven days or fewer, five for eight to 14 days, five for 15 to 28 days and ten for 29 or more days but less than two months. None was detained for longer than that.
	Delays and backlogs were mentioned. They have been an enormous problem, but I know from my constituency case load as well as from my work in the Home Office that most of the backlog will be cleared by this March and the vast majority by 2011. We inherited a very big backlog, but there has been work to make progress on it and people are already coming to my surgery either facing deportation or having been granted their status. The matter will always be a challenge, and I would never say that it is resolving itself, but the backlog has been massively reduced. I do not have time now to go into the regulation of legal advisers, but the Government share the frustration at legal advisers who do not do their job properly and sometimes misadvise their clients. Let us be frank: they are playing games with people's lives. Since 30 April 2001, it has been a criminal offence for an adviser to provide immigration advice or services unless their organisation is registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner-an independent non-departmental public body set up under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999-has been granted a certificate of exemption by that body, or is otherwise covered by the 1999 Act, which includes solicitors and others who are professionally qualified in the field. It is important that we maintain vigilance on that. I talk to many hon. Members who, like me, have large case loads, and we share their concerns. There is always more to be done.
	I have answered a number of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington asked, but she also mentioned delays and blockages in the system.
	I shall touch on alternatives in a moment, but when there is a request to extend a child's detention by one or two days, for example, I must take into account what would happen to them if they went back into the community, where they would go, their welfare, and what would happen if they were to yo-yo-go out into the community and return to detention within a day or two, with all the travel and upset that that involves, and the hopes that it would raise. I take that very seriously as the Minister responsible. I have sometimes decided that it is more acceptable to leave a child where they are, knowing that they are facing imminent removal, even if they go over a bureaucratic deadline. I re-emphasise that I take such decisions seriously. I must take into account all the advice and information I can gather on each case.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked whether he could meet me. I am happy to extend an invitation both to him and to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire to talk them through where we are now, and keep them apprised of developments, particularly on alternatives.
	Hon. Members have touched on a number aspects of child welfare. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which was introduced last November, placed a statutory safeguarding duty on the UK Border Agency. That has given us, and me particularly as the Minister responsible, an opportunity to examine and improve even further the safeguarding of children in our care. That measure was introduced at around the same time that I became the Minister responsible, so I am fortunate, because it gives me an extra opportunity to look at what we do.
	Child welfare, which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire touched on, is taken extremely seriously at Yarl's Wood. Robust arrangements are in place to identify any concerns. A multi-disciplinary team, including a social worker from Bedford borough children's services, reviews each child on a weekly basis. When a child's welfare is affected by their continued detention, a detention review is triggered, and we look to release that child and his or her parents. A regular children's forum, complemented by a new children-specific complaints process, provides children with the opportunity to give feedback on their overall experience of their detention, their transport and their stay at the centre. Their comments are important and are very much taken on board.
	I shall not go through the long programme of steady improvements that have taken place at Yarl's Wood since Serco took over the operating contract in 2007, because, in all fairness, the hon. Gentleman has more than adequately explained them. Again, I thank him for his balanced tone in this debate.
	I should like to correct a slight misapprehension from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz): all children are offered an education at Yarl's Wood. The school is available for children from nursery to A-level age, but, of course, it is not compulsory. Every time I review a child in detention and whether to extend that, I get information on whether they are engaging with school or nursery or whatever is appropriate, and why they do not attend if that is the case. They are important indicators for me and I need to make decisions on the basis of as much information as I can get. When the Home Affairs Committee visited Yarl's Wood, it was lunch time, which is why there were no children in the school, but the school is a good facility, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire acknowledged. The improvements have been acknowledged by others, including Sir Al Aynsley Green, the Children's Commissioner for England, and the independent monitoring board. However, we are not complacent and, as the Minister responsible, I certainly would not want to be complacent on this important issue. We continue to look to identify further enhancements.

Patrick Hall: On the subject of the improvements to the educational facilities at Yarl's Wood that have been brought about by Serco, I understand that each child is offered 30 hours a week tuition, but that is voluntary. For younger children, that provision is accompanied by a nursery that is open seven days a week.

Meg Hillier: That is indeed the case, but we are looking to improve facilities for 16 to 18-year-olds in particular, and we are creating a new kitchen and dining area to enable families to cook meals together, which we hope will help to maintain family bonds and a sense of normality-not to mention assist reintegration, whether in the country of origin or in the UK, even if only on a temporary basis.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire also mentioned health care. My primary concern is that detainees receive the right standard of care and support while they are in our care. I looked into this issue closely before today's debate. Good-quality care can be provided by the private sector as much as by the national health service. The health care department at Yarl's Wood provides a good standard of care, which is comparable to primary care found in the community. Of course, referrals to secondary health care would be within the NHS.
	All the health care staff at the centre are caring, qualified professionals, and no less able to care for detainees than the national health service does in the community. Residents are all seen by a nurse within two hours of arrival, and given an appointment to see a GP within 24 hours unless the nurse believes an earlier appointment is necessary. Thereafter they have access to the service on demand. We also vaccinate children and provide support to expectant and nursing mothers-an issue close to my heart as I am one myself, and I have always been alert to the extra pressure that pregnancy can put on women in detention, especially if they have other children.
	I should also point out that health care in all our centres is subject to the standards, audit and inspection programme by the Care Quality Commission as national health service facilities. Indeed only a few weeks ago, the commission was at Yarl's Wood inspecting the services there, and we look forward to receiving its report in due course. I shall make a particular point of alerting both the hon. Members with a constituency interest in that report when it is published.
	We are ensuring that we have proper screening for mental health issues, so that anyone with a mental illness is identified on arrival, together with the best pathway for their treatment. That is important because, as hon. Members have pointed out, that can be one of the key hidden health factors for someone facing the difficulties of detention.
	As I have said, we really do not want to detain children at all and would much prefer that families accept the decision of deportation on their case and leave the UK promptly-although if they accepted the decision they would of course leave voluntarily. However, while we do not currently envisage a position in which we would never detain-I would not want to go that far at this point-we are committed to exploring alternatives that at the very least reduce the number of families being detained while ensuring that they depart the UK promptly when required.
	Following the Kent pilot, a three-year pilot has been running in Glasgow since June 2009. I know where it is because I passed the properties when I was last visiting the area-before I had my baby-although they were not up and running at the time. However, I will visit Glasgow next week to see it for myself and, if possible, to talk to some of the families, although that can be difficult, given that they are all in flats. The project is providing intensive support to families who have exhausted all rights to remain in the UK, helping them to confront the issues delaying their departure.
	The 12-month pilot of the migrant helpline was in Ashford, Kent, and that was aimed at providing accommodation, health care, education and legal services to the families with no basis of stay. It has been acknowledged that that was not a success, with only one family departing under the assisted voluntary return scheme. We are learning the lessons of that scheme to take on board in Glasgow.

Alistair Burt: Were the suggestions made in the comprehensive report by the Children's Society, the Princess of Wales Memorial Fund and Bail for Immigration Detainees incorporated into the new project so that some of the concerns raised will not come up again?

Meg Hillier: We looked at a number of issues when we formulated the new programme. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned those organisations and others involved in this area, because I am keen to arrange a round table meeting with some of those most passionately interested in the issue. Some outside organisations say, Never detain a child, but we need to maintain an immigration system-that is the Government's responsibility and it is mine on behalf of the Government. I am keen to work with people who favour alternatives to see how we can shape those alternatives and ensure that they work and deliver outcomes that are better for the families and children concerned, while still achieving the ends of an immigration system.
	We will accommodate four or five families at any one time for a process that lasts about 12 weeks, and the pilot will be evaluated by Barnardo's and the consultancy firm Organisational Development and Support. So far, eight families have been through the project. One family absconded and a second has been removed forcibly. Thus far, there have been no voluntary returns, although two are currently pursuing the voluntary route. It is early days-we are barely more than six months in-but after my visit, I will happily let hon. Members know what is happening.
	That is just one initiative, and more can be done, including in communities, because people do not necessarily have to go to special facilities. I look for support from the voluntary sector, especially those with an interest in this area, to prevent families from entering detention in the first place. I have only relatively recently been given responsibility for this area, but I am sometimes a little dismayed by the outside criticisms, which do not always suggest alternatives. It is the Government's responsibility to find alternatives, but I am keen to bring on board those who have concerns, and to discuss with them the practical alternatives and the role that they could play in helping those who are liable for detention to avoid it and to leave the country voluntarily.
	The Government are committed to maintaining a firm but fair asylum and immigration system, and the departure of those who do not have a basis to stay here is the most important element of that. It is only fair. I am also responsible, with another hat, for those whom we take from UN refugee camps around the world, many of whom are vulnerable and have been in camps for 20 years. If we allow only people on our shores to stay-because they have made it here-we can lose sight of our wider humanitarian responsibilities as a responsible nation. It is important that we recognise their needs as well.
	I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford will join me in calling for those who are critical to work with me. That is a genuine offer. I want to see how we can work together to ensure that these alternatives work and result in a reduction in the number of children with their parents in detention.
	I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for raising this debate. We have been fortunate to have a good length of time. The welfare of those in our care is at the heart of what the UK Border Agency and Serco do at Yarl's Wood. It is a challenging area of work, the staff do a good job in difficult circumstances, and I know that he recognises the progress that has been made. We are not complacent, however. A continuous programme is needed to look at how we can improve areas of service at Yarl's Wood and to look at alternatives to immigration detention.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.